PSYCHOSIS

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from October 1966 to June 1968, sought service connection for a psychiatric condition, hypertension, a heart condition, a throat condition, and diabetes. The Board dismissed the appeal for the psychiatric condition due to untimeliness and lack of good cause for an extension. For hypertension, heart condition, and throat condition, the veteran claimed toxic exposure to herbicides in Japan, citing service at Kadena Air Base and contact with herbicides. The Board noted the veteran's lay statements were credible and consistent with the record, and that hypertension, heart condition, and throat cancer are presumptively linked to herbicide exposure. While VA examinations in February and March 2024 provided negative nexus opinions, the Board found them inadequate for failing to address pertinent evidence and apply the correct standard of proof. A June 2024 VA examination found a positive nexus for throat cancer and heart disability related to herbicide exposure. Given the conflicting evidence and the Board's finding of approximate equipoise, the benefit of the doubt was resolved in the veteran's favor, granting service connection for hypertension, heart condition, and throat condition. For diabetes, the Board found no evidence of diagnosis, treatment, or functional impairment, and the veteran himself denied suffering from diabetes at the Board hearing. The evidence weighed persuasively against this claim, leading to a denial.

Rationale

Untimely appeal filed several years after statement of the case; No good cause shown for extension; Dismissed as untimely

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034820
Decision Date: 04/15/26	Archive Date: 04/15/26

DOCKET NO. 250225-516804
DATE: April 15, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for psychiatric disorder is dismissed.

Service connection for hypertension is granted.

Service connection for heart condition is granted.

Service connection for throat condition is granted.

Service connection for diabetes condition is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In a December 2017 statement of the case, the regional office (RO) denied service connection for psychiatric condition.

2. The Veteran did not timely appeal the December 2017 statement of the case.

3. The February 2025 VA Form 10182 was filed several years from the December 2017 statement of the case.  

4. No good cause was shown for the February 2025 VA Form 10182 untimely appeal of service connection for psychiatric condition.

5. The evidence for and against whether the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in Japan is at least evenly balanced. 

6. The Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents while performing active duty service in Japan. 

7. The Veteran's hypertension is related to in-service herbicide exposure.

8. The Veteran's heart disability is related to in-service herbicide exposure.

9. The Veteran's throat disability is related in-service herbicide exposure.

10. The evidence weighs persuasively against service connection for diabetes.

11. The record does not show the Veteran has or has been treated for diabetes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for the review of service connection for psychiatric condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.201, 20.202, 20.203, 20.204.

2. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1116 (b), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309.

3. The criteria for service connection of heart condition have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection of throat condition have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

5. The criteria for service connection for diabetes condition have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from October 1966 to June 1968.

In a June 2017 rating decision and a December 2017 statement of the case, the RO denied service connection for psychiatric condition.  In December 2023, the RO denied service connection for throat condition and in February 2024 denied service connection for heart and hypertension disabilities. 

In May 2024, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim for service connection of throat, heart, diabetes, and hypertension disabilities.  In October 2024, the RO denied the claims.

In the February 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket.  A hearing was held in December 2025.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2024 rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).  

If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.  

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider with respect to the appealed claims, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  

If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered
 and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.  

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider with respect to the appealed claims, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501.  

If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Untimely Appeal

The VA Form 10182 is used to appeal decisions issued under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).  The form can only be used to perfect an appeal that was issued on or after February 19, 2019, or a Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) rating decision issued prior to February 19, 2019.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2400, 19.2.  

Regarding the filing of a VA Form 10182, the governing regulation states that except for simultaneously contested claims, "a claimant, or his or her representative, must file a properly completed Notice of Disagreement with a decision by the agency of original jurisdiction within one year from the date that the agency mails the notice of the decision."  38 C.F.R. § 20.203(b).  

"An extension of the period for filing a Notice of Disagreement or a request to modify a Notice of Disagreement may be granted for good cause.  A request for such an extension must be in writing and must be filed with the Board.  Whether good cause for an extension has been established will be determined by the Board."  38 C.F.R. § 20.203(c).

1. Service connection for psychiatric disorder.

In a June 2017 rating decision, the RO denied service connection for psychiatric disorder.  In December 2017, the Veteran properly appealed this decision and in the same month the RO denied the claim in a statement of the case.  

Nevertheless, in the February 2025 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran requested review of the October 2024 rating decision for the issue of service connection for depression.  However, the October 2024 rating decision does not address the issue of service connection for depression.  Additionally, the RO last adjudicated this issue in the December 2017 statement of the case which the Veteran did not timely appeal.  

Further, the February 2025 VA Form 10182 was filed several years later from the December 2017 statement of the case.  While the Veteran attempted to appeal the above-mentioned statement of the case for service connection for psychiatric disorder in the February 2025 VA Form 10182, no good cause was shown for the untimely appeals. 

Consequently, the appeal of the December 2017 statement of the case for service connection of psychiatric disorder is dismissed.

Service Connection

In general, service connection may be granted for a disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  

To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability.  See Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  

Service connection may be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). 

If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, presumptive service connection for numerous diseases will be established even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided that the disease manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(ii), 3.309(e).  

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability,
 be established by credible lay evidence and medical evidence provided by the Veteran or otherwise.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2018). 

If a veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service, presumptive service connection for numerous diseases will be established even though there is no record of such disease during service, provided that the disease manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more at any time after service.  38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6)(ii), 3.309(e).  

In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, in which case the claim is denied.  See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

2. Service connection for heart condition.

3. Service connection for throat condition.

4. Service connection for hypertension condition.

The Veteran seeks service connection for heart, throat, and hypertension disabilities due to toxic exposure in service.  

The medical evidence documents functional impairment with treatment and diagnoses of coronary artery disease, atrial fibrillation, hypertension, and throat cancer.  See non-VA medical treatment record (March 2019); VA medical examinations (February 2024 and July 2024); VA medical treatment record (October 2016 and March 2024).  Additionally, VA found the Veteran is diagnosed with coronary artery disease, hypertension, and throat cancer.  See Rating Decision - Narrative (October 2024).  

The Veteran reported experiencing heart problems in service.  See STR (October 1967).  The Veteran also described how his active service duties in Japan required extensive travel to installations throughout the island where he came into contact, or close proximity, with herbicides. See BVA hearing transcript (December 2025).  

Notably, VA affirmed the Veteran's toxic exposure at Kadena Air Base in Japan and Camp Lejeune.  See VA memo (August 2024). Hypertension is a condition that is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure.

The Veteran, as a lay person, is "competent to report observable conditions."  See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Here, the Veteran's competent lay statements are consistent with other evidence of records. Consequently, the Veteran's competent lay statements are credible and constitute probative evidence weighing in favor of the claim.  

In June 2024, a VA examiner determined that it is more likely than not the Veteran's throat cancer and heart disability are related to the Veteran's exposure to herbicides while serving in Japan.  See VA medical examinations (July 2024).  Consequently, the medical opinions are adequate and are also highly probative evidence weighing in favor of the claim. 

On the other hand, negative nexus opinions were obtained by VA for heart and hypertension disabilities in February 2024 and throat disability in March 2024.  See VA medical examinations (February 2024 and March 2024).  However, the examiners did not sufficiently address the pertinent lay and medical evidence of record regarding the onset, cause, and nature of the Veteran's appealed conditions.  Moreover, the examiners did not apply the correct standard of proof and support the findings with a full rationale.  See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 260 (2020); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008).  

The failure to properly address the onset, cause, and nature of the Veteran's appealed conditions, resulted in incomplete findings for the Board to properly adjudicate the claimed conditions.  Therefore, the February 2024 and March 2024 examinations findings are inadequate and afforded minimal probative value.  

For the above reasons, the probative evidence for and against the claims is at least approximately balanced. After resolving any remaining reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection for heart, hypertension, and throat disabilities, as due to herbicide exposure, is warranted.

5. Service connection for diabetes.

In May 2024, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim for service connection of diabetes condition.  

However, the medical evidence does not reveal treatment, diagnosis, or functional impairment related to diabetes.  Moreover, during the December 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran reported he does not suffer from diabetes
.  Therefore, the February 2024 and March 2024 examinations findings are inadequate and afforded minimal probative value.  

For the above reasons, the probative evidence for and against the claims is at least approximately balanced. After resolving any remaining reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection for heart, hypertension, and throat disabilities, as due to herbicide exposure, is warranted.

5. Service connection for diabetes.

In May 2024, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim for service connection of diabetes condition.  

However, the medical evidence does not reveal treatment, diagnosis, or functional impairment related to diabetes.  Moreover, during the December 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran reported he does not suffer from diabetes and did not recall submitting a claim for this condition.  See BVA hearing transcript (December 2025). Consequently, the probative evidence weighs substantially against the claim. 

For the above reasons, the evidence for and against the claim of service connection of diabetes is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so.  Rather, the probative evidence weights persuasively against the claim.  The benefit of the doubt doctrine is therefore not for application to this extent and service connection for diabetes is not warranted.  See 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). 

 

SHAUN S. SPERANZA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Alvarado

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.