PSYCHOSES

JONATHAN B. KRAMER · 2026 · Case ID: A26036126

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army veteran who served from February 1988 to April 1997, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) or other specified trauma and stressor related disorder. The Veteran claims a psychiatric condition arose due to false allegations of sexual misconduct during service, which he believes hindered his career progression. The Board reviewed the evidence, including the Veteran's testimony at a hearing, service treatment records (STRs), a March 2021 VA examination, and a January 2025 private examination. The STRs showed no psychiatric issues during service, and the separation examination noted normal psychiatric findings with the Veteran denying depression. Post-service, the Veteran denied psychiatric history in multiple instances. The March 2021 VA examiner found the Veteran did not meet PTSD criteria, noted prison treatment for depression and anxiety unrelated to service, and concluded no mental disorder was diagnosed during service. The January 2025 private examination diagnosed an "other specified trauma and stressor related disorder" but was deemed inadequate by the Board due to conclusory reasoning, internal inconsistencies regarding PTSD symptoms, and an inaccurate premise about military perpetuation of allegations. The Board found the Veteran's claims of psychiatric treatment during service and incarceration not credible due to inconsistencies with contemporaneous service records and post-service denials. The Board concluded that the evidence weighs against service connection, denying the claim.

Rationale

No PTSD diagnosis; other specified trauma and stressor related disorder not related to service.; Private opinion deemed inadequate due to conclusory reasoning and internal inconsistencies.; Veteran's claims of psychiatric treatment during service and incarceration found not credible due to inconsistencies with records.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210505-157077

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036126
Decision Date: 04/17/26 Archive Date: 04/17/26

DOCKET NO. 210505-157077
DATE: April 17, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran does not have posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD); and the diagnosed other specified trauma and stressor related disorder is not related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1988 to April 1997.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2021 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

The Veteran provided testimony at a November 2024 hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims folder.

The claim is now before the Board on an April 2021 Hearing Review Request by the Veteran under the Appeals Modernization Act (2019) ("AMA"). Under the AMA, when a claimant seeks appellate review through the Board's hearing docket, the Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, additional evidence submitted on the date of the Board hearing (including testimony), and additional evidence submitted within 90 days of the hearing. Pub. Law 115-55 (Aug. 23, 2017), 131 Stat. 1114, 38 U.S.C. § 7113(b). The Board cannot consider (1) evidence submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and before the VA Form 10182 was received, (2) evidence submitted during the period after the VA Form 10182 was received and the day before the Board hearing, and (3) evidence received 91 or more days after the Board hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

This matter was previously before the Board in January 2021. The claim was remanded for the RO to obtain personnel records and afford the Veteran a VA examination. In January 2021 personnel records were added to the file and in March 2021 a VA opinion was rendered. As such, the Board will proceed with the merits of this appeal.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder

The Veteran asserts service connection is warranted for an acquired psychiatric disorder due to stressful incidents during service. Specifically, the Veteran stated that while in service he was falsely accused of sexual misconduct by his child's mother and that the ongoing investigation caused him to not get promoted, ending his military career. During the November 2024 Board hearing the Veteran indicated he was cleared of the charges, sought treatment during service, and was given a diagnosis. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran's current disability is related to service. Therefore, service connection is not warranted.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In general, service connection requires: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Service connection for PTSD requires the presence of three particular elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and a claimed in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). For the purposes of establishing service connection for PTSD, medical evidence diagnosing PTSD must be in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) as the source of criteria for the diagnosis of claimed psychiatric disorders.

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence as to any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA will resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38
1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and a claimed in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). For the purposes of establishing service connection for PTSD, medical evidence diagnosing PTSD must be in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) as the source of criteria for the diagnosis of claimed psychiatric disorders.

Turning to the evidence, service treatment records (STRs) do not reflect any symptoms, diagnosis, or treatment for a psychiatric disability. On the April 1997 separation examination, normal clinical findings were noted for the psychiatric system. On the concurrent report of medical history the Veteran denied depression or excessive worry and nervousness.

Post service, in July 2007 the Veteran was sentenced to a 2-year, 7-year, 3-year, and 2-year sentence in a penal institution.

In January 2017 the Veteran denied a psychiatric history. In September 2018 he denied a history of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks.

A March 2021 VA examination report indicated review of the Veteran's claims file, recounted the Veteran's history, and recited his complaints. The examiner found the Veteran's symptoms. It was opined that the claimed condition was less likely as not related to service. For the rationale the examiner indicated that no mental disorder was diagnosed prior to or during active-duty service and none was documented in service records. It was noted that the prison records from 2007 to 2010 note treatment for depression and anxiety associated with adjustment to the prison environment and personality disorder. He was seen within the VA system of care during 2018-2019 due to his participation in a vocational program (CWT) and the need for counseling to assist with adjustment after the lengthy prison sentence. He also reported problems with sleeping at that time. He is not currently in treatment and none of his prior treatment focused on trauma related to his service in the military. It was therefore concluded that the diagnostic criteria for PTSD or any other mental disorder are not met at this time.

During the November 2024 Board hearing the Veteran indicated he received psychological counseling during active-duty service. He also indicated that he had psychiatric care during his 9-year prison sentence.

A January 2025 private examination was completed by psychologist R.B. The doctor determined the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD; however, he was diagnosed with other specified trauma and stressor related disorder. It was opined that his PTSD symptoms are directly due to his experience of false allegations perpetuated by the military. It was also opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's other specified trauma and stressor related disorder is related to service. The opinions were based on an interview with the Veteran, peer consultation, review of medical literature, and review of journal articles.

The Board has reviewed all of the lay and medical evidence of record in conjunction with the applicable laws and regulations and finds the current disability is not related to service.

Initially, the Board notes the Veteran does not have a PTSD diagnosis. Under 38 CFR § 4.125 a diagnosis of a mental disorder has to conform to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). In this case the March 2021 VA examiner found that the Veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under DSM-5 criteria. However, he does have a mental diagnosis as the January 2025 private examination reflects a diagnosis of other specified trauma and stressor related disorder. Upon review of the evidence the Board finds service connection for the other specified trauma and stressor related disorder is not warranted.

In this regard the Board acknowledges the January 2025 private opinion. The document included pages one and three. As such, it appears page two was not provided. Nonetheless, based on what was provided the Board finds the opinion is inadequate. The doctor provided a conclusory rationale noting that the opinion was based on an interview with the Veteran and review of literature and journals, however, the doctor failed to identify how that review supported finding the Veteran's psychiatric disability is related to service. Conclusory statements are insufficient when they lack analysis and is not supported by the record. See Sola v. Peake, 2008 U.S. App. Vet. Claims 1701. Additionally, the doctor provided an internally inconsistent opinion as it was noted that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD, however the doctor attributed "PTSD" symptoms to service. Furthermore, the doctor indicated that these "PTSD" symptoms are directly due to his experience of false allegations perpetuated by the military, however, it does not appear the military perpetuated false allegations. During the November 2024 Board hearing the Veteran indicated his child's mother made sexual allegations against him resulting in an investigation and as a result of the investigation, he did not receive a promotion with the military. The opinion appears to support the notion that the military perpetuated the sexual allegations, which is inaccurate. The weight of a medical opinion is diminished where that opinion is ambivalent, based on an inaccurate factual premise, based on an examination of limited scope, or where the basis for the opinion is not stated. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993); Sklar v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 140 (1993). As such, the Board finds the January 2025 private opinion is inadequate.

While the Veteran reports psychiatric counseling during active-duty service prior to discharge in 1997 as well as during his 9-year prison sentence which began in 2007, the Board finds these reports are not credible. The Board has a duty to address the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Here, the reports of counseling during service and incarceration are not credible because the accounts have been inconsistent. The April 1997 separation examination reflects a normal clinical finding for the psychiatric system, and the Veteran explicitly denied depression. Also, in January 2017 VA treatment records the Veteran denied a psychiatric history and in September 2018 he specifically denied a history of PTSD, depression, anxiety, and panic attacks. The Veteran's statement of receiving treatment since service are in direct conflict with the contemporaneous service treatment records as well as post treatment records. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records is one fact the Board can consider and weigh against the other evidence, although the lack of such medical records does not, in and of itself, render the lay evidence not credible). The Veteran's incarceration began in 2007 and post discharge, the record reflects denials of a history of psychiatric care as demonstrated in January 2018 and September 2018. This service separation and post service treatment records contradict the Veteran's Board hearing testimony. The memory fades and becomes more imperfect with the passage of time, while the documented reports more accurately reflect what actually happened. See Seng v. Holder, 584 F.3d 13, 19 (1st Cir. 2009) (noting that, notwithstanding the declarant's intent to speak the truth, statement may lack credibility because of faulty memory). Therefore, the Board finds the contemporaneous medical records and post incarceration reports more credible that the Veteran's later assertion of psychiatric treatment since service and during incarceration.

Furthermore, the Veteran has alleged that the sexual allegations from his child's mother resulted in a lack of promotion within the military. However, in September 1995 he received the Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service. He was evaluated for periods to include, March 1994 to January 1995, March 1994 to January 1995, February 1995 to August 1995, September 1995 to August 1996. For all of those ratings the rater indicated the Veteran was fully successful or demonstrated excellence in each area evaluated. In September 1996 the Veteran received a general officer reprimand for driving while intoxicated. He also received a September 1996 article 15 violation for leaving the scene of an accident, driving a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and driving without a valid driver's license. He was demoted from E5 to E4 as a result
Army Commendation Medal for meritorious service. He was evaluated for periods to include, March 1994 to January 1995, March 1994 to January 1995, February 1995 to August 1995, September 1995 to August 1996. For all of those ratings the rater indicated the Veteran was fully successful or demonstrated excellence in each area evaluated. In September 1996 the Veteran received a general officer reprimand for driving while intoxicated. He also received a September 1996 article 15 violation for leaving the scene of an accident, driving a vehicle in an unsafe manner, and driving without a valid driver's license. He was demoted from E5 to E4 as a result of the violations. The September 1996 to April 1997 rating period continued to reflect positive successful ratings with the exception of physical fitness where it was noted that he needs some improvement. As such, it does not appear that the Veteran's ratings were negatively affected due to sexual allegations.

The only other evidence relating the Veteran's psychiatric disability to an in-service injury are the Veteran's lay statements. However, these statements alone do not establish a medical nexus. Indeed, while the Veteran is competent to provide evidence regarding matters that can be perceived by the senses, he is not shown to be competent to render medical opinions on questions of etiology. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology). As such, as a lay person, he is without the appropriate medical training and expertise to offer an opinion on a medical matter, including the diagnosis, etiology, or causation of a specific disability. The question of diagnosis and causation, in this case, involves complex medical issues that the Veteran is not competent to address.

Accordingly, service connection for a psychiatric disability is denied. As the weight of the evidence is persuasively against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. See 38 U.S.C.§5107(b); 38 C.F.R.§ 3.102; see also Gilbert, 1 Vet. App.at 53-56.

JONATHAN B. KRAMER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Jackman, Bridget

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer