UNSPECIFIED DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from May 2012 to May 2015, with subsequent Reserve service until December 2019, appeals the denial of service connection for GERD and seeks an increased rating for his unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress. The Board granted an increased rating for the depressive disorder to 70 percent, effective December 21, 2024, finding the evidence in approximate balance between a 50 percent and 70 percent rating and applying the benefit of the doubt. The Board noted symptoms characteristic of both ratings, including flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty with social relationships, but also noted the Veteran's strong family relationships and lack of psychiatric hospitalization, which precluded a 100 percent rating. Service connection for GERD was denied because the Board found no current diagnosis or objective evidence of GERD, despite the Veteran's credible report of chest pain. The Board reasoned that the absence of medical reporting or objective findings for the chest pain, and the lack of a diagnosis, meant the first element of service connection (a current disability) was not met. The Board found the evidence persuasively weighed against service connection for GERD.

Rationale

Evidence in approximate balance between 50% and 70% ratings; Benefit of the doubt applied to grant 70% rating; Symptoms characteristic of 70% rating (deficiencies in most areas) found to be more applicable than 50% rating (reduced reliability/productivity)

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26034898
Decision Date: 04/15/26	Archive Date: 04/15/26

DOCKET NO. 251004-598362
DATE: April 15, 2026

ORDER

An increased evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, for unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress, effective December 21, 2024, is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The probative evidence of record is in approximate balance whether the unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress manifested with occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood since December 21, 2024.

2. The probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran's claimed GERD is not related to military service or secondary to service-connected conditions, because there is no diagnosis of GERD.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an evaluation of 70 percent for unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress have been met from December 21, 2024. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.126(a), 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9435.

2. The criteria for service connection for GERD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 2012 to May 2015, with additional periods in the Army Reserves from May 2015 until December 2019.

The rating decisions on appeal were issued in April 2025; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In the October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal for the issue of an increased rating for depressive disorder, or at the time of July 2024 AOJ decision on appeal, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review (HLR) for the issue of service connection for GERD, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. Specifically, there is a November 2025 VA examination relevant to the issue of an increased rating for depressive disorder which the Board could not consider, as it was outside of the evidentiary window.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 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.

Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

In deciding claims, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the entire record on appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss every piece of evidence submitted by the Veteran. See Gonzales v. West, 
Disability ratings are determined by applying a schedule of ratings based on average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Each disability must be viewed in relation to its history and the limitation of activity imposed by the disabling condition. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

In deciding claims, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the entire record on appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss every piece of evidence submitted by the Veteran. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows with respect to the claim. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-30 (2000).

In adjudicating these claims, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of the Veteran. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005). Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 405 (1995).

If there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in the Veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as "staged" ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505.

When a claim for an increased rating is granted, the effective date assigned may be up to one year prior to the date that the application for increase was received if it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred in that timeframe. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509 (2007); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2) (allowing for an earlier effective date for an increased rating grant to the extent the worsened severity is factually ascertainable within the year preceding the filed claim). Dubbed the "one year look back" provision, it is essentially a one-year grace period for a veteran to file an increased rating claim following some incident of worsening.

Section 3.400(o)(2) is intended to be applied in those instances where the date of increased disablement can be factually ascertained with a degree of certainty and is not intended to cover situations where a disability worsened gradually and imperceptibly over an extended period of time and there is no evidence of entitlement to increased evaluation prior to the date of claim. See VAOPGCPREC 12-98 (Sept. 23, 1998). The "effective date for an increased rating, indeed, as well as for an initial rating or for staged ratings," depends on when the change in disability level can be "ascertained."  Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015).  

The Board is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence is persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Unspecified depressive disorder

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for his service-connected unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress. See October 2025 Notice of Disagreement and Veteran's statement.

In evaluating the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the evidence is in approximate balance whether the Veteran's symptoms more closely approximated occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity; or occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.
 § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Unspecified depressive disorder

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for his service-connected unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress. See October 2025 Notice of Disagreement and Veteran's statement.

In evaluating the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the evidence is in approximate balance whether the Veteran's symptoms more closely approximated occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity; or occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. Therefore, an evaluation of 70 percent is granted from December 21, 2024, the date of the increase claim, and an evaluation greater than 70 percent is denied.

Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula), the Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board must determine whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages. Then, the Board must determine whether the associated symptoms, both listed and unlisted, caused the level of impairment required for a higher disability rating. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 C.F.R. § 4.126(a). 

Under the General Formula, a 50 percent rating is warranted for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

A 70 percent rating is warranted for occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

A 100 percent evaluation is warranted for total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

The Veteran's psychiatric disability, which was originally rated as insomnia disorder and service connected in a December 2023 rating decision, was increased to 30 percent disabling and identified as adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood in a July 2024 rating decision. The Veteran filed an increase claim in December 2024 and was increased to 50 percent for unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress in the April 2025 rating decision on appeal.

The period of review begins one year prior to the date of the increase claim. Thus the period of review is from December 2023 until the date of the rating decision in April 2025 and also includes evidence submitted by the Veteran between October 2025 and January 2026, the 90 day evidentiary window.

The Veteran was provided with a June 2024 VA examination, at which examiner K.L. diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. K.L. opined that the severity of the adjustment disorder was best characterized as occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication.

At the examination, the Veteran reported having a "great" marriage of 5 years, with stable family relationships, but also reported that he doesn't like big crowds and so he is somewhat secluded. The Veteran reported he was losing his
 evidence submitted by the Veteran between October 2025 and January 2026, the 90 day evidentiary window.

The Veteran was provided with a June 2024 VA examination, at which examiner K.L. diagnosed adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. K.L. opined that the severity of the adjustment disorder was best characterized as occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication.

At the examination, the Veteran reported having a "great" marriage of 5 years, with stable family relationships, but also reported that he doesn't like big crowds and so he is somewhat secluded. The Veteran reported he was losing his job due to the job no longer being available, and that he had some trouble fitting in because the civilian workplace was different from military culture. He had plans to get a job in a pest control company. The Veteran reported getting therapy in the fall of 2023 because he had 8 free appointments through work. These records are not a part of the file. The Veteran reported past transient suicidal ideation without intent or plan, and no current or recent suicidal ideation.

K.L. noted symptoms on examination of depressed mood, anxiety and chronic sleep impairment. Behavioral observations on examination were that the Veteran was on time, with appropriate grooming and hygiene. His speech was logical, goal-directed and of normal rate, rhythm, volume and tone. The Veteran was alert, oriented, pleasant and engaged, with appropriate eye contact. There was no sign of psychomotor agitation, retardation, tangentiality or circumstantiality.

The Veteran was provided with a January 2025 VA examination at which examiner M.D.-O. updated the Veteran's diagnosis to unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress. M.D.-O. opined that the severity of the adjustment disorder was best characterized as occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

At the examination, the Veteran reported that he is very close to his parents and siblings and also remains married with four children. The Veteran reported that his position was dissolved and he left in June of last year. The Veteran reported that has been employed for the past month as a repair technician. The Veteran reported increased depression that can cause him to have a lack of motivation to do things, that his depression occurs almost daily, distracts him at work and impacts his sleep. The Veteran noted past thoughts that it would be better to not be here, but without plan or intent and with support form his wife, children and parents.

M.D.-O. noted symptoms on examination of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect and disturbances of motivation and mood. Behavioral observations included that the Veteran was alert and oriented to person, place, time and situation. The Veteran did not maintain consistent eye contact and spoke slowly and in a low voice. The Veteran presented as depressed and anxious but did not report or exhibit signs of a thought disorder. The Veteran's memory, concentration and attention were intact. The Veteran denied current suicidal ideation, intent or plan.

In October 2025 the Veteran submitted a lay statement. The Veteran reported additional symptoms of his depressive disorder of frequent panic attacks and severe anxiety which make it difficult to concentrate or handle stress, near-continuous depression that affects motivation and ability to perform routine tasks including personal hygiene. The Veteran reported impaired impulse control, irritability and periods of anger that affect relationships. The Veteran reported social withdrawal and isolation, chronic sleep impairment, feelings of hopelessness, neglect of personal interests and loss of enjoyment. The Veteran also reported missing work due to his mental health, and that he struggles to maintain consistent employment and stable interpersonal relationships. As for when these more serious symptoms began, the Veteran only indicated that "Since my last evaluation, my condition has worsened significantly..."

The Board begins by attempting to identify when the more serious symptoms reported in the October 2025 lay statement occurred. The Veteran's report that "Since my last evaluation, my condition has worsened significantly" could be referring either to the January 2025 VA examination or to the earlier June 2024 VA examination within the period on appeal. Giving the Veteran the benefit of the doubt that he was referring to the earlier June 2024 examination and that the worsening occurred sometime after the June 2024 examination, it seems reasonable the worsening occurred sometime between the June 2024 examination and the December 2024 claim for increase, since logically, the Veteran would submit a claim for increase if his condition had worsened. However, no specific date between the June 2024 examination and the December 2024 claim for increase has been identified in the record.

Therefore, the only ascertainable date is the date of the claim for increase, December 21, 2024. On the December 2024 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (526), the
 benefit of the doubt that he was referring to the earlier June 2024 examination and that the worsening occurred sometime after the June 2024 examination, it seems reasonable the worsening occurred sometime between the June 2024 examination and the December 2024 claim for increase, since logically, the Veteran would submit a claim for increase if his condition had worsened. However, no specific date between the June 2024 examination and the December 2024 claim for increase has been identified in the record.

Therefore, the only ascertainable date is the date of the claim for increase, December 21, 2024. On the December 2024 VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits (526), the Veteran reported that his depression makes him, "feel like I am not useful, needed, or able to do things that I used to enjoy doing."

While there is both evidence of a disability characteristic of occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, and evidence of deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood, if there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Where there is an approximate balance of the evidence, the benefit of the doubt shall be resolved in the Veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

Many of the symptoms identified in the examinations and in the Veteran's lay statements are characteristic of a 50 percent evaluation. Panic attacks more than once a week, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining relationships, these are all symptoms listed in the schedule as characteristic of a 50 percent evaluation. Depression, anxiety and sleep impairment at typical frequency, duration and severity are generally characteristic of a 30 percent evaluation. The fact that the Veteran has never had a psychiatric hospitalization and did not seek further counseling after exhausting his free sessions suggests a lower degree of impairment. Also, the January 2025 VA examiner opined that the degree of severity of the depressive disorder was occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. While the opinion of the examiner is not binding on the Board, their opinion is given weight due to their training, expertise and thorough examination of the Veteran.

The evidence does not show any impairment to the family relations aspect of mental health. The Veteran consistently reported good relationships with his wife, children, parents, and siblings. This demonstrates that total occupational and social impairment was not present.

However, there is also evidence that the Veteran had deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood. As just stated, there was no deficiency in family relations. However, the Veteran struggled to work during the period on appeal, and per his credible statements was unemployed after losing his job due to no fault of his own for several months before starting new employment, had difficulty with work relationships and has had to miss work for depression. Thus, a deficiency in work is shown. The Veteran reported being anxious and depressed, thus a deficiency in mood is shown. The Veteran was not attending school, and so that facet is not relevant. The Veteran reported being isolated, avoiding crowds, and avoiding going out, and so a deficiency in social relationships is shown.

Thus the severity of the depressive disorder has some characteristics that more closely approximate a 50 percent rating for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, and some characteristics that more closely approximate a 70 percent rating for deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood. The Board finds that the probative evidence is in approximate balance whether a 50 or 70 percent rating should be assigned. Therefore, granting the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, finds that the Veteran's depressive disorder was more characteristic of deficiencies in most areas. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7.

However, while the Board finds that the Veteran's depressive disorder was more characteristic of deficiencies in most areas, total occupational and social impairment was not shown by the evidence. The Veteran has strong, healthy relationships with his family. The Veteran was never hospitalized for psychiatric reasons.

An evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, effective December 21, 2024, is granted. A 100 percent rating is denied.

Service Connection

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a disability which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. To prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show (1) evidence of a current disability; (
 occupational and social impairment was not shown by the evidence. The Veteran has strong, healthy relationships with his family. The Veteran was never hospitalized for psychiatric reasons.

An evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, effective December 21, 2024, is granted. A 100 percent rating is denied.

Service Connection

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Secondary service connection may also be established for a disability which is aggravated by a service-connected disability. To prevail on the issue of secondary service connection, the record must show (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) competent evidence establishing that the service-connected disability caused or aggravated the nonservice-connected disability. See Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Lay testimony is competent to prove that a claimant exhibited certain lay-observable symptoms and the time that those symptoms appeared. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Lay evidence cannot be determined to lack credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

As with increase claims, in service connection claims, the Board is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence is persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

GERD

The Veteran asserts that his GERD is secondary to his service-connected migraines because of the medication he takes for his migraines. See January 2024 526 and December 2024 HLR and Veteran's statements in those documents.

For the reasons discussed below, service connection cannot be established for GERD, on a secondary basis to the migraines. The most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of GERD or symptoms of an undiagnosed disability causing functional impairment.

The Veteran was provided a June 2024 VA examination, at which examiner S.W. determined that there was not a diagnosis of GERD or any other esophageal disorder. Examiner S.W. indicated that there was no objective evidence of any symptoms of a disorder on examination or in the medical record. The examiner considered the Veteran's report of symptoms, specifically heart burn or pyrosis, to be subjective only and insufficient to establish a diagnosis or to cause any functional impairment.

In his October 2025 statement, the Veteran indicated that his GERD is confirmed in his medical records.

A review of the record shows that there is no indication of complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of any kind of esophageal symptoms or disability in the VA Medical Center (VAMC) treatment records, in private treatment records, or in the service treatment records (STRs).

This matter is resolved on the first element of service connection, a current disability.

Disability evaluations are based on functional impairment and the loss of earning capacity caused by that impairment. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1362-63 (2018). A diagnosis by a medical provider can show a current disability, but symptoms of an undiagnosed condition causing functional impairment may also show a disability. Id. at 1364 (pain is an impairment insofar as it "it diminishes the body's ability to function" and results in an impairment in earning capacity.) However, pain alone is not sufficient to show a disability, it must cause functional impairment.

There is no diagnosis of GERD anywhere in the record, thus the analysis proceeds to whether there are symptoms of an undiagnosed condition causing functional impairment.

At the June 2024 VA examination, the Veteran reported symptoms of chest pain, also referred to as heartburn or pyrosis. The Board considers the Veteran credible to report the experiences of his own senses, such as pain. However, the Veteran has not provided any evidence to show that the chest pain he experienced caused any kind of functional impairment, such as missed work. There is also no medical evidence or opinion linking the credible report of chest pain
" and results in an impairment in earning capacity.) However, pain alone is not sufficient to show a disability, it must cause functional impairment.

There is no diagnosis of GERD anywhere in the record, thus the analysis proceeds to whether there are symptoms of an undiagnosed condition causing functional impairment.

At the June 2024 VA examination, the Veteran reported symptoms of chest pain, also referred to as heartburn or pyrosis. The Board considers the Veteran credible to report the experiences of his own senses, such as pain. However, the Veteran has not provided any evidence to show that the chest pain he experienced caused any kind of functional impairment, such as missed work. There is also no medical evidence or opinion linking the credible report of chest pain to an esophageal condition, and as the symptom of chest pain may be associated with or caused by many different disabilities, the presence of the pain alone does not prove the existence of an esophageal condition.

The Board may draw inferences against a claimant from a lack of documentation if it lays a proper foundation. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 239 (2012); Fountain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 258, 272 (2015). If that inquiry concerns a lack of medical documentation, the Board must discuss whether the condition was of such severity that it would have been reasonable to expect the appellant to seek treatment.

In this case, if the Veteran were experiencing chest pain, the Board would expect that the Veteran would report it to medical providers, especially since chest pain may sometimes be associated with life threatening conditions. And in fact, the Veteran's statement indicated that he did seek treatment. If, as the Veteran indicated, he received a medical diagnosis, he should either provide copies of such records, provide a letter from his treating provider, or complete a VA Form 4142 identifying the records so that the VA can obtain them.

The Board therefore finds it reasonable to expect the Veteran to have reported and sought treatment for his symptoms, or for his symptoms to have been severe enough that some objective evidence would have been present at the VA examination. The medical record is silent, and the VA examiner found no objective evidence of a diagnosable condition. Therefore, the Board does not find the Veteran's report of pain alone to constitute a disability for VA purposes.

The Board finds that the competent evidence persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has a current disability. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against service connection, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

JOHN Z. JONES

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Schneider, Joan K.

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.