ANXIETY DISORDER

ERIC S. LEBOFF · 2026 · Case ID: A26036960

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, who served on active duty from December 1986 to April 1987, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including generalized anxiety disorder, and for glaucoma. The Veteran contends the anxiety is due to an incident in Panama and the glaucoma is due to contaminant exposure during reserve duty. The Board found no competent evidence of a current psychiatric disorder or relevant symptoms, noting that the Veteran's service in Panama was not active duty and his in-service exams were normal. Post-service records also showed no psychiatric complaints. Therefore, service connection for the psychiatric disorder was denied. For glaucoma, the Board acknowledged a current diagnosis and a favorable finding from a prior rating decision regarding in-service incurrence. However, the Board found no nexus to service, as the VA examiner opined the glaucoma was not related to service or contaminant exposure, citing the lack of scarring and normal in-service vision tests. The Veteran's lay statements regarding glaucoma etiology were outweighed by the VA opinion. Service connection for both conditions was denied.

Rationale

No competent evidence of current psychiatric disorder or symptoms; In-service exams normal; no post-service complaints; Panama service not active duty; no showing of incurred/aggravated disability

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250703-561084

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036960
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 250703-561084
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include generalized anxiety disorder, is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had an acquired psychiatric disorder at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding the Veteran's glaucoma began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include generalized anxiety disorder, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for glaucoma are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1986 to April 1987.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from?an April 2025?rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the July 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review 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. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

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.

The Board,?pursuant to?Clemons, finds that the Veteran's claim?of?service connection for anxiety is more accurately?characterized as service?connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to?include a generalized anxiety disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23?Vet. App.?1 (2009).

1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include generalized anxiety disorder.

The Veteran is seeking service connection?for anxiety, which he contends is due to being accidentally left in Panama. See 3/24/25 VA Form 21-0781.

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, air, or space service.? 38 U.S.C. § 1110;?38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2)?in-service?injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie,?886 F.3d 1356, 1361?(Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred?in service.? 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 139 (1997)

The term "active military, naval, air, or space service" includes active duty,?and?any period?of?ACDUTRA during which the individual concerned was disabled from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in line?of?duty. 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a). ACDUTRA is, among other things, full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes or by members?of the National Guard?of?any state when performing federal service. ?38 U.S.C. § 101(22);?38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c)(1).

At the outset, the Board acknowledges that VA examinations have not been afforded with respect to the claims of service connection for?an acquired psychiatric disability and a lung?disability to determine whether such disabilities are related to service. As will be explained in further detail below, no such examination or opinion is?required?because the evidence does not suggest that the Veteran has a disability, or symptoms thereof, that may be associated with his active service.?38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d);?see also McLendon?v. Nicholson,?20?Vet. App.?79, 81?(2006).

Under?McLendon v. Nicholson, in disability compensation claims, VA must provide a VA medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, and (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim.?20?Vet. App.?79, 81?(2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d);?38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). Thus, there are four elements to review to?determine?if a medical examination is necessary.?Id.

Here, service treatment records do not show any complaints or treatment related to anxiety other psychiatric disorder. Following his period of active duty the Veteran enlisted in the National Guard and the examination in January 1988 showed normal findings, with no relevant complaints raised in the accompanying report of medical history.

Military personnel records show that the Veteran was in Panama; however, such service is not considered active duty, as the Veteran was in Panama from April 1993 to May 1993. See 4/17/93 Military Personnel Record at 10. The Veteran also stated that his anxiety began in January 1993 when he did not have a ticket to go home from Panama, again during a time period that is not considered active duty. See 1/21/20 VA Form 21-526EZ. As noted above, in some circumstances National Guard duty can qualify as active service but in this case there is no showing that a disability was incurred or aggravated during such time.

Post-service treatment records do not reflect any complaints, findings, or diagnoses with respect to an acquired psychiatric disorder, including anxiety.

There are no other lay statements from the Veteran or another individual regarding the Veteran's claimed disability of an acquired psychiatric disorder, including anxiety.

In sum,?the competent evidence of record reflects neither a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder nor a history of potentially relevant symptoms. Therefore, the evidence persuasively weighs against finding a current disability here.

The Board emphasizes that Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in disability.?See?38 U.S.C. § 1110;?see also?McClain v. Nicholson,?21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2005). Accordingly, where, as here, competent medical evidence?indicates?that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is?sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection for the disability.?See?Gilpin v. West,?155 F.3d 1353?(Fed. Cir. 1998);
symptoms. Therefore, the evidence persuasively weighs against finding a current disability here.

The Board emphasizes that Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service connection for disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in disability.?See?38 U.S.C. § 1110;?see also?McClain v. Nicholson,?21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2005). Accordingly, where, as here, competent medical evidence?indicates?that the Veteran does not have the disability for which service connection is?sought, there can be no valid claim for service connection for the disability.?See?Gilpin v. West,?155 F.3d 1353?(Fed. Cir. 1998);?Brammer v. Derwinski,?3?Vet. App.?223, 225?(1992).

Furthermore, neither the documented treatment records?or?the lay evidence tend to?demonstrate?a history of continuity of symptomatology dating back to service. Therefore, the evidence?persuasively weighs against finding?an event, injury, or disease occurred in service?and?symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability.

Moreover, while the Veteran believes that he has?an acquired psychiatric disorder and that it is related to service, he has not provided any specific details in support of his assertions and, in any event, as a lay person he is not competent to render diagnoses or address questions of etiology, which are medically complex.?See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007);?see also?Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011).?While he is competent to report observable symptoms, in this case he has not done so.

For the foregoing reasons, the Board concludes that the evidence weighs persuasively against the claim, and service connection?for?an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable.?See?38 U.S.C. § 5107?(b);?38 C.F.R. § 3.102;?Lynch, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

2. Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for a left and right eye disability, which he contends began in 1991 due to contaminants that he was exposed to while on reserve duty. See 1/21/20 VA Form 21-526EZ.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §?3.303.?The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1)?a current disability; (2)?in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.?Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an "approximate" (meaning?nearly equal) balance of positive and negative evidence?regarding?any material determination.?See?Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (2021);?Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

Here, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of glaucoma. See 2/19/20 VA Examination at 2. The rating decision notes this as a favorable finding of in-service incurrence, which is binding on the Board. See?38?U.S.C. §?5104A; 38?C.F.R. §?3.104(c); 4/15/25 Rating Decision. As previously mentioned, he contends that his left and right eye disability began in 1991 due to contaminants he was exposed to while on reserve duty. See 1/21/20 VA Form 21-526EZ. The Board notes that the Veteran was not on active service in 1991. See DD 214. He was also exposed to toxins in service. See 9/28/23 TERA Memo.

As for whether the Veteran's glaucoma is related to service, there is no evidence to support a nexus.

In February 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA examination, in which the examiner opined that the Veteran's glaucoma was not related to service, including contamin
/15/25 Rating Decision. As previously mentioned, he contends that his left and right eye disability began in 1991 due to contaminants he was exposed to while on reserve duty. See 1/21/20 VA Form 21-526EZ. The Board notes that the Veteran was not on active service in 1991. See DD 214. He was also exposed to toxins in service. See 9/28/23 TERA Memo.

As for whether the Veteran's glaucoma is related to service, there is no evidence to support a nexus.

In February 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA examination, in which the examiner opined that the Veteran's glaucoma was not related to service, including contaminant exposure. See 2/19/20 VA Opinion at 2. The examiner explained that glaucoma is rarely caused by contaminants, and in situations where contaminants cause glaucoma, there is more scarring to the eyes. Here, the Veteran did not have such. The Veteran's in-service exams did not document eye trouble, and vision tests were within normal limits. The Board finds the opinion competent, credible, and assigns it high probative value as the examiner reviewed the entire claims file, relied on medical literature and the facts of the Veteran's case, and provided a rationale for the conclusion.

There are no other medical opinions of record addressing whether the Veteran's glaucoma is related to service, including toxin exposure in service, with the only opinion of record being against the claim. In sum, the cumulative evidence of record?shows that the Veteran's?glaucoma?is not related to service. Accordingly, without a nexus, the Board finds the?Veteran's glaucoma?is not due to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

In reaching its conclusion, the Board also considered the Veteran's?lay statements that his glaucoma is related to service. Although?the Veteran believes his glaucoma is related to service, and he is competent to report his symptoms and their onset, he is not competent to provide an opinion as to the etiology of his glaucoma.?See?Layno?v. Brown, 6?Vet. App.?465, 471 (1994);?see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24?Vet. App.?428, 438 (2011). Thus, the Veteran's statements are outweighed by the other evidence of record, including the February 2020 VA medical opinion.

Accordingly, the Board finds the criteria for service connection for glaucoma have not been met. The benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102;?Lynch,?21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Eric S. Leboff

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Sproviero

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