UNSPECIFIED DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

JENNIFER WHITE · 2026 · Case ID: A26037082

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from February 2004 to June 2008, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically including PTSD, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder. The veteran claims these conditions stemmed from alleged abuse by his ex-wife during service, which he reported occurred on his enlistment date. However, the Board found the veteran's statements regarding symptom onset, mental health history, and the alleged in-service stressors to be inconsistent and not credible. For example, his accounts of symptom onset varied between immediately after the alleged incident and months after discharge, and his reports of prior suicide attempts and mental health treatment also differed. Furthermore, his service records documented domestic violence incidents where he was the perpetrator, but did not show any mental health treatment during service. The Board also noted inconsistencies in his claims about his military occupational specialty and his interactions with authority figures. A March 2025 private medical opinion found it less likely than not that his unspecified mood disorder was related to service, citing a lack of in-service or immediately post-service mental health records and concerns about the validity of his reported symptoms, compounded by marijuana use. The Board found this opinion adequate, as the veteran's credibility was undermined. The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

Rationale

Veteran's statements regarding symptom onset and history varied.; Service records do not document in-service mental health treatment.; Veteran's claimed in-service stressors were inconsistent and not credible.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

260203-638223

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037082
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 260203-638223
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence of record weighs persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder which is related to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for the establishment of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had confirmed service from February 2004 to June 2008.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In August 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a June 2025 rating decision. In October 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the initial rating decision. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2025 initial rating decision.

In the February 2026 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 June 2025 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. Id.

In the February 2026 VA Form 10182, the Veteran also waived his right to switch docket review lanes?pursuant to?Williams?v. McDonough,?37?Vet. App.?305?(2024). ??

The Board notes that the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence had been received and readjudicated the Veteran's claim in the October 2025 HLR rating decision. The determination that new and relevant evidence has been received is a finding favorable to the claimant and is binding on the Board unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c), 20.801(a).

The Board notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any relevant private treatment records or submit information with which VA can assist the Veteran in obtaining private treatment records. Required notice and information were provided in the claim form which the Veteran signed, certifying to the fact that such notice was received and further that they have included or identified relevant evidence. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002).

Further, the Board acknowledges that the record contains a November 2025 letter from St. Joseph's Hospital Behavioral Health Center, which is in response to an April 2024 request by VA for mental health records. In the November 2025 letter from St. Joseph's, it indicates that an authorization signed by the Veteran was not provided. Here, the Board notes that St. Joseph's already responded to VA's April 2024 letter that same month and provided VA with all available mental health records. Thus, this November 2025 letter was clearly sent in error and does not represent a pre-decisional duty to assist error on behalf of VA.

The standard set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) only permits constructive receipt of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records that not only existed prior to the issuance of
April 2024 request by VA for mental health records. In the November 2025 letter from St. Joseph's, it indicates that an authorization signed by the Veteran was not provided. Here, the Board notes that St. Joseph's already responded to VA's April 2024 letter that same month and provided VA with all available mental health records. Thus, this November 2025 letter was clearly sent in error and does not represent a pre-decisional duty to assist error on behalf of VA.

The standard set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) only permits constructive receipt of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records that not only existed prior to the issuance of the AOJ decision on appeal, but also for which the claimant furnished sufficient information to make the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) aware of the existence of those records. Thus, the Board's consideration of VHA records is limited to the same. Here, the Board finds that VA treatment records were obtained and reviewed consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) and the AMA framework.

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be established for disability due to a disease or injury that was incurred in or aggravated by active military service.? 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303.? Service connection may also be granted for any disease initially 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).??????

In general, in order to prevail on the issue of service connection the evidence must show: (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).

In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection.? Brammer?v. Derwinski,?3?Vet. App.?223, 225?(1992).? The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied "when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim... even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim."? McClain?v. Nicholson,?21?Vet. App.?319, 321?(2007).

Competency and probative value are two entirely distinct concepts. Whereas the former is a threshold legal concept that pertains to whether a particular piece of proffered evidence can even be considered by the factfinder, the latter pertains to the credibility and weight of such evidence as assigned by the trier of fact. If evidence is found to be competent, it is for the Board to determine what, if any, probative value to assign to that evidence. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (it is the responsibility of the Board to assess the probative weight of the evidence).

Factual Background and Analysis

In his April 2024 Supplemental Claim, the Veteran is claiming service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to personal trauma, depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder.

The AOJ made the following favorable findings: the current VA examination shows a diagnosis of unspecified mood disorder; an October 2020 examination contains diagnoses of unspecified depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD); and hospital reports from 2020 show the Veteran was treated for major depressive disorder (MDD) with anxiety and psychosis. These favorable findings are binding on the Board unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in any favorable finding. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104.

In a May 2020 statement, the Veteran is claiming that in February 2004 his ex-wife assaulted him and that he was verbally, physically, and mentally abused while stationed at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base (AFB). The date he reported this incident took place is the same date in February on which he enlisted. He reported that following this incident, he experienced several behavioral changes, such as increased visits to a medical or counseling clinic or dispensary, even without a specific diagnosis of specific ailment; extreme weight loss or gain; lethargy; MDD and GAD; increased disregard for military or civilian authority; withdrawal from friends; unexplained social behavioral changes; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; obsessive behaviors; increased or decreased use of prescription medications or over-the-counter medications; substance abuse such as alcohol or drugs; staying at home, not wanting to go out, agoraphobia; increased fear of surroundings, inability to go certain areas; increased use of leave; changes in performance and performance evaluations; economic changes; and paranoia, anxiety, and depression.

Service treatment records do not contain any complaints of or treatment for any mental health disorders.

On the same date in February 2004 that the Veteran alleges his then spouse first assaulted him at Wright-Patterson AFB (in Ohio), service personnel records show the Veteran was ordered to report to Lackland AFB in Texas.

A March 2007 document reflects the Veteran's commander was considering punishing him with an Article 15. The second page of the document reflects the Veteran violated Article 128 by striking his then spouse with his fist, kicking her on the leg with this foot, and pulling her hair with his hand. A no contact order with the Veteran's spouse was issued the following day; despite the no contact order, four days later, the Veteran failed to obey the same by having contact with his then spouse, in violation of Article 92.

A March 2007 response to the above document from the Veteran indicates he decided to accept nonjudicial punishment for his actions; he apologized for his misbehavior, accepted that what he did was his fault entirely, indicated he took full responsibility for his actions, and acknowledged there was no excuse for his misconduct.

A November 2007 document reflects the Veteran was not recommended for reenlistment. It states that he received nonjudicial punishment for disobeying a no contact order and for abusive behavior toward his wife and that security base forces had also been called to intervene on two other incidents of domestic discord between him and his wife. The Veteran's supervisor further explained that his job performance had been satisfactory at best and that he had at times been insubordinate and had difficulty maintaining military bearing.

At a March 2020 private appointment, the examiner (J.R, D.O.) indicates the Veteran presented for evaluation of anxiety. The Veteran reported significant stressors included continuation of a divorce settlement, job related stress, and family issues. He reported symptoms included insomnia, racing thoughts, inability to concentrate, frequently feeling nervous, and feeling on edge. The examiner noted the Veteran had "PTSD issues," explaining that he was "held up at gunpoint age 13." A March 2020 letter the same provider indicates that based on obtained history and psychological assessment instructions, the Veteran was diagnosed with anxiety.

In April 2020, the Veteran called the suicide hotline and indicated he was struggling with "paranoia" and that he found himself "being extremely manipulative toward people in [his] life who [he knows] care for [him]." He stated he received an email from his ex-wife's lawyer, which triggered his anxiety and that he needs and is ready for help.

The day after calling the suicide hotline in April 2020, he was admitted for inpatient psychiatric treatment for approximately 15 days. At his initial psychiatric evaluation, the Veteran reported he attempted suicide the previous day by putting a loaded gun to his head; he indicated he had a mental breakdown in the last few days with increased paranoia and believing everyone was out to get him, including the government. He stated he used to work in the intel community in the military which goes to his paranoia. He further stated he had paranoia because of the Coronavirus, that he saw the virus early and tried to warn people, and that paranoid thoughts had been going on for the past week. He acknowledged that marijuana may have had a hand in his increased anxiety and paranoia. The discharge diagnoses were MDD (recurrent severe with psychosis) and GAD.

A May 2020 private mental health note reflects the Veteran was presenting to establish care; he reported he was recently hospitalized for a suicide attempt and that this was his first ever attempt. He stated he had been depressed and anxious for a long
out to get him, including the government. He stated he used to work in the intel community in the military which goes to his paranoia. He further stated he had paranoia because of the Coronavirus, that he saw the virus early and tried to warn people, and that paranoid thoughts had been going on for the past week. He acknowledged that marijuana may have had a hand in his increased anxiety and paranoia. The discharge diagnoses were MDD (recurrent severe with psychosis) and GAD.

A May 2020 private mental health note reflects the Veteran was presenting to establish care; he reported he was recently hospitalized for a suicide attempt and that this was his first ever attempt. He stated he had been depressed and anxious for a long time but that for the past couple months his mood had been worse; he acknowledged paranoia about the government following him and stated he could just not take it anymore. The examiner assessed a severe episode of recurrent MDD without psychotic features, GAD, and medical marijuana use.

At a May 2020 VA behavioral assessment, the Veteran reported longstanding symptoms of depression and anxiety. He reported his symptoms intensified about a month prior accompanied by suicidal thoughts/plan/intent. The examiner noted a self-interrupted suicide attempt resulted in him being admitted to inpatient mental health treatment. The Veteran stated that during his hospitalization he thought the staff was "trying to hurt [him]" but that he now realizes "they were trying to help [him]." He reported significant improvement in mood/anxiety symptoms since the hospitalization and continued engagement in psychiatric care. When asked about mental health history and psychotherapy, he reported attending family therapy in approximately 2000 and also reported he participated in psychotherapy in April 2020 as part of inpatient psychiatric care during his hospitalization. When asked about past suicide attempts, he reported in approximately 1995, he told his parents he planned to shoot himself and they intervened; he also stated in April 2020 he held a gun to his head and that event was self-interrupted. When asked about problems with close relationships, he identified problems with his mother and father and reported continued difficulties coping with emotional and physical abuse during childhood.

At a May 2020 VA outpatient psychiatric evaluation, the Veteran reported a past psychiatric history of MDD and GAD. He stated he had symptoms of depression for years but they got really bad when the Coronavirus began; he felt they were worse because he was "more paranoid" and that "the government might be out to get [him]." He also reported symptoms of anxiety for years, worrying about everything. He indicated he had a manic episode in his life and that before he was depressed, he was manic with grandiosity, hyperactivity, irritability, racing thoughts, hyposomnia, and restlessness; however, the examiner felt a lot of his description sounded like anxiety and fairly normal mood or slightly better mood than what he has now and noted he tended to over endorse his symptoms in general. The examiner noted the Veteran largely did not describe PTSD symptoms or trauma symptoms at that time and that he did report abuse from his father (which was physical) but felt he had overcome it. The examiner indicated that he met the criteria for MDD at that time but that given his report of a prior manic episode, the examiner diagnosed unspecified depressive disorder for now until it was sure he had MDD. The examiner also found the Veteran also met the criteria for GAD at that time. The examiner encouraged the Veteran to stay away from marijuana as much as possible, noting he recently stopped using it and that it may have caused some paranoia in the past. Psychologically, the examiner found the Veteran tended to over endorse symptoms for secondary gain (monetary gain or disability) or that he was being overly honest to a fault about absolutely everything, however, this was more of an obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) characteristic (and the examiner previously noted the Veteran did not endorse OCD symptoms). This note also reflects possible bipolar disorder (however extremely unlikely).

At a May 2020 private individual therapy session, the Veteran informed the provider he enjoyed playing hockey with a group of about 20 people at a local facility the other day; the provider called that facility after the appointment and was informed the facility was closed until June 2020 due to COVID-19. The provider noted that the Veteran had made similar statements in the past and that it was hard for the provider to discern between reality and possible delusions of the non-bizarre type.

At a May 2020 VA suicide risk evaluation, when asked about prior suicide attempts, the Veteran stated that when he was around 12 to 13 years old, he attempted suicide by firearm because of the abuse he was suffering from his father; he stated his parents stopped him from accessing firearms at that point. He also reported a prior attempt in
with a group of about 20 people at a local facility the other day; the provider called that facility after the appointment and was informed the facility was closed until June 2020 due to COVID-19. The provider noted that the Veteran had made similar statements in the past and that it was hard for the provider to discern between reality and possible delusions of the non-bizarre type.

At a May 2020 VA suicide risk evaluation, when asked about prior suicide attempts, the Veteran stated that when he was around 12 to 13 years old, he attempted suicide by firearm because of the abuse he was suffering from his father; he stated his parents stopped him from accessing firearms at that point. He also reported a prior attempt in April 2020 when he held a loaded firearm to his head and decided not to do it after speaking to his girlfriend who told him she loved him. When asked about recent psychosocial stressors, the Veteran stated he had been experiencing increased levels of stress due to COVID-19, that he was stressed from work, and that his father recently tried to get him to do cocaine with him (which caused additional stress and anxiety). He reported a past history of abuse by his father and stepmother. The examiner noted the Veteran was a high, chronic risk, as evidenced by the fact that he suffered from chronic suicidal ideation since childhood and had suffered various forms of trauma.

A July 2020 VA psychiatric outpatient note reflects the Veteran was seen via telephone for medication management and brief therapy. He stated he "felt pretty good," was doing much better, that he stopped consuming edible cannibis several weeks prior, and that he has not had any paranoia or psychotic symptoms; he did report he continued to use medical marijuana daily and did not wish to stop at that time. The examiner diagnosed unspecified depressive disorder and GAD based on the DSM-5 criteria. A disclaimer to this treatment note states that "the listed diagnosis is based solely on the Veteran's self-report of symptoms" and that "the clinical assessment that led to this diagnosis did not include any measure of potential response bias, a review of the Veteran's claim file, or a review of other collateral sources." The disclaimer further states that that the "assessment results and diagnosis documented in this note are for treatment purposes only and should not be used to make legal decisions, such as VA compensation and pension determinations."

At an October 2020 VA mental health examination, The Veteran described his childhood as "ok," and stated there were some dramatic events when he was young. He acknowledged some "bad times" with his dad, noting his dad would spank him and his siblings with different objects like a belt and that his dad had problems with drug abuse and alcohol. He reported marrying and having one son during his military service and stated he and his ex-wife used to get into arguments all the time and that he thinks "the root of a lot of what happened . . . she accused [him] of beating her and called the cops on [him] . . . which is not true, and they arrested [him] and detained [him]" and that "she did it a second time and [he] ended up getting an Article 15." When asked about mental health history, he denied any mental health treatment or issues during childhood; he reported his dad had a history of substance abuse (alcohol, cocaine) problems and other family members had histories of marijuana use. He stated that in 2007 while stationed at Wright-Patterson AFB, following a domestic incident and his arrest, he was mandated to anger management and individual counseling for possibly a few months. After service, he reported that in April 2020 he was psychiatrically hospitalized for two weeks following "an episode of really bad paranoia" and that he "believed the government was watching [him]." The examiner noted he reported the onset of anxiety and paranoid symptoms just prior to the aforementioned psychiatric hospitalization. The Veteran denied any legal or behavioral problems prior to or following his military service. During service, he reported he was arrested in 2006 and 2007 following his ex-wife calling the police for domestic incidents and that he received an Article 15 following the second arrest. He denied any significant use of alcohol or drugs prior to entering the military (noting he experimented with marijuana "a few times"); he denied significant use of alcohol and denied drug use while in the military. When asked about post-service substance abuse, he stated he had problematic alcohol use on the weekends for about two years; currently, he described alcohol use as "on occasion but very rarely" and stated he used "medical marijuana . . . daily in the evenings." When asked about the stressor/basis of his claim for PTSD, the Veteran indicated that "basically it revolves around the two incidents that happened while [he]
ex-wife calling the police for domestic incidents and that he received an Article 15 following the second arrest. He denied any significant use of alcohol or drugs prior to entering the military (noting he experimented with marijuana "a few times"); he denied significant use of alcohol and denied drug use while in the military. When asked about post-service substance abuse, he stated he had problematic alcohol use on the weekends for about two years; currently, he described alcohol use as "on occasion but very rarely" and stated he used "medical marijuana . . . daily in the evenings." When asked about the stressor/basis of his claim for PTSD, the Veteran indicated that "basically it revolves around the two incidents that happened while [he] was in [service]" which he felt "created a fear of the government coming after [him]." He stated that after he was arrested, he was told to contact police to get stuff from his home and that after he called police to get his stuff he "got in trouble from [his] First Sergeant because [he] violated a no contact order" despite the fact he was there with base police. He stated there were "several events that ruined [his] trust in authority" and that "once the pandemic started" that exacerbated things. He reported a lot of things were happening (work, the pandemic, his dad trying to get him to use cocaine, his ex-wife "harassing" him and her lawyer sending him notices threatening to take him to court), which caused a lot of stress, and caused him to become paranoid and attempt suicide. He reported he started experiencing paranoid thoughts 2-3 weeks prior to his April 2020 psychiatric hospitalization and had no paranoid thinking prior to then. He stated his paranoia involved feeling the government or FBI were after him for "something . . . since [he] worked in the intel community, was warning people about the virus" and that "a lot of stuff happened that [he] was predicting" so it gave him a "confirmation bias." He stated the onset of his mental health symptoms was "a few months after military discharge" and that at that time marital separation and custody issues were initiated. The examiner noted that at the conclusion of the interview that the Veteran was asked if there was anything that was not discussed during the interview that would be important to address or anything that may have been touched upon but warrants more discussion, and the Veteran answered "no." The examiner found the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD but that he did meet the criteria for diagnoses of unspecified depressive disorder and GAD.

A private therapy note dated February 2021 indicates that the provider received a voicemail from the Veteran apologizing for missing an appointment the day prior and indicating the reason he missed it was because he was "trying to report foreign intelligence surveillance acts of abuse." The provider spoke with the Veteran's mother who indicated he was having another "psychotic break," that he had been smoking a lot more marijuana lately, and that she did not believe he was taking his medication.

February 2021 private records reflect the Veteran presented to the emergency room (St. Joseph's) in the company of law enforcement; prior to arrival, he had suicidal ideation, depression, and paranoia. The admitting note reflects he was brought in under the Baker Act for bizarre paranoid ideas of reference; he was a poor historian and suspicious of going into much detail, but he reported an overall sense of fear/worry after noticing attacks/harassment by government agencies and family (fiancée). His mother reported that about one year prior, something similar happened, and he was prescribed medication, but he did not take it because it made him too "foggy." It was noted the Veteran's relationship (of six years) had recently ended. The Veteran only reported a history of "anxiety." He informed the admitting physician that he felt the physician was an undercover official and stated he felt he was drugged by his fiancée (a pharmacist) who put something in his medical marijuana. He stated he started noticing things one month ago when electronics in his home were being hacked. The discharge summary contains assessments of bipolar disorder (current episode mixed, severe, with psychotic features), other psychoactive substance abuse with psychoactive substance-induced psychotic disorder with delusions, psychiatric problem, and schizophreniform disorder.

At a March 2021 VA telephonic psychiatry appointment, the Veteran stated he was recently admitted to a private behavioral health unit for three days for paranoid delusions and that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He indicated that before that hospitalization, he had racing thoughts, thought God was speaking to him, thought the government was following him, and thought people were out to get him. He stated he continued to believe that the government was out to get him and that his
electronics in his home were being hacked. The discharge summary contains assessments of bipolar disorder (current episode mixed, severe, with psychotic features), other psychoactive substance abuse with psychoactive substance-induced psychotic disorder with delusions, psychiatric problem, and schizophreniform disorder.

At a March 2021 VA telephonic psychiatry appointment, the Veteran stated he was recently admitted to a private behavioral health unit for three days for paranoid delusions and that he was diagnosed with bipolar disorder. He indicated that before that hospitalization, he had racing thoughts, thought God was speaking to him, thought the government was following him, and thought people were out to get him. He stated he continued to believe that the government was out to get him and that his girlfriend had drugged him for some reason. He acknowledged cannabis use, was instructed to stop all cannabis use, and was educated about how it makes psychotic symptoms worse and can make them frequent and permanent.

In January 2024, the Veteran left a message with a VA mental health provider indicating he felt he had recently been in touch with a VA disability attorney, that he felt he was not properly diagnosed in 2020, and that he had come to terms with his bipolar diagnosis and wished to reapply for VA benefits. He stated he believed service connection is due to domestic abuse and violence perpetrated by his wife at the time (including physical and psychological abuse) and that he believed his first sergeant and unit commander at the time failed to recognize the abuse and perpetrated more psychological abuse. He stated that past events from the military along with the stress of the pandemic, work-related incidents, and family issues combined drove him into a paranoid, psychotic, and manic state, resulting in a two-week hospitalization in 2020 and a three-day hospitalization in 2021.

A private February 2024 mental health treatment note reflects the Veteran was a former client of that provider and that he wished to seek services to address symptoms of bipolar 1 disorder. The provider noted that in two involuntary stays at mental health facilities under the Baker Act, there were indications that the Veteran experienced psychosis, likely caused by his marijuana use, which made him feel paranoid. It was noted he was treated then for depression and anxiety and had been diagnosed with bipolar 1 disorder.

At a July 2024 VA mental health examination, the Veteran reported his in-service stressor was being falsely accused of domestic violence by his ex-wife in 2006, which led to him being arrested and eventually charged with an Article 15. He indicated he did not contest this because he could not afford a lawyer and did not want to risk of receiving a court-martial, so he admitted to it and apologized. He now says this was a false statement and that he did not do anything aggressive or violent toward his ex-wife. He reported his wife was violent toward him during their relationship, but he never felt his life was in danger. The examiner found the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD but did have a diagnosis of unspecified mood disorder.

The record contains a March 2025 opinion finding it is less likely than not that the Veteran's unspecified mood disorder is related to service, reasoning that medical records are silent for mental health symptoms or treatment during or shortly after service, post-service medical records show treatment for mental health, but they are far from his discharge date and there are no records showing chronicity. The examiner further explained that while there are extensive records indicating the Veteran has dealt with various mood symptoms and possible psychotic symptoms, the validity of these are questionable and confounded by marijuana use in the past.

Following a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds it weighs persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder which is related to service.

Initially, the Board finds the Veteran is not credible due to several internal inconsistencies in the record. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 510-11 (1995) (credibility can be generally evaluated by a showing of interest, bias, or inconsistent statements, and the demeanor of the witness, facial plausibility of the testimony, and the consistency of the testimony).

Significantly, the Veteran's statements regarding the onset of his symptoms and mental health history (including treatment) have varied. In his May 2020 statement, the Veteran reported that several behavioral changes occurred immediately after the claimed in-service incident, to include depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. Yet, at his October 2020 VA mental health examination, he reported the onset of mental health symptoms "a few months after military discharge," around the time he was dealing with marital separation and custody issues. Further, at the October 2020 examination, he denied any significant use of alcohol while in the military; rather, he reported problematic alcohol use post-service for about two years.

At his October
and the consistency of the testimony).

At his October 2020 VA mental health examination, the Veteran reported he was mandated to anger management and individual counseling in 2007 following a domestic incident and his arrest. Just a few months prior at a May 2020 VA behavioral health assessment, when asked about prior mental health treatment, he only reported attending family therapy in approximately 2000 and participating in psychotherapy in April 2020; he did not mention any anger management or individual counseling. Further, the Board notes that while the Veteran's service treatment and personnel records document domestic violence issues (with the Veteran being the perpetrator) during service, these records do not document that the Veteran participated in any mental health treatment during service, which would have been documented in his records had he participated in such treatment.

Further, at a private mental health appointment in May 2020, the Veteran reported he was recently hospitalized the prior month for a suicide attempt and that this was his first ever attempt. Conversely, at a May 2020 VA suicide risk evaluation, approximately three weeks after the aforementioned mental health appointment, the Veteran reported that when he was around 12 or 13 he attempted suicide by firearm because of abuse he was suffering from his father. At an October 2020 VA mental health examination, the Veteran denied any mental health issues during childhood. A March 2020 private treatment note indicates the Veteran has "PTSD issues" explaining he was "held up at gunpoint age 13," suggesting this wasn't a suicide attempt, but rather, potentially an assault.

Moreover, the Veteran's claimed in-service stressors have varied and been inconsistent. In May 2020, the Veteran claimed he was verbally, physically, and mentally abuse by his ex-wife during service. At a May 2020 VA behavioral assessment, the Veteran reported difficulties coping with emotional and physical abuse during childhood but did not report any problems stemming from his time during service relating to his ex-wife. At an October 2020 VA mental health examination, the Veteran then stated that during service his ex-wife accused him of beating her and called the cops on him twice, resulting in an Article 15 the second time; when asked about the stressor/basis for his claim for PTSD, he indicated that after he was arrested, he went to his residence with base police to get stuff from his home and that despite being with base police he was found to have violated a no contact order. At the October 2020 examination, the Veteran did not indicate that he was verbally, physically, or mentally abused by his ex-wife during service (as he had claimed in his May 2020 statement). Of note, although the Veteran has reported several times that he received an Article 15 for domestic abuse during service, his service personnel records reflect he accepted nonjudicial punishment in lieu of being charged with an Article 15. Further, while the Veteran reported during his April 2020 inpatient hospitalization that he worked in intel during service, which he felt is related to his paranoia, he never mentioned this in any statements in support of his claim or at his October 2020 or July 2024 VA examinations.

Given the plethora of inconsistencies in the record outlined above, the Board finds the Veteran is not credible.

The March 2025 opinion indicates it is less likely than not that the Veteran's unspecified mood disorder is related to service, noting there are no records during or shortly after service showing mental health symptoms and that available post-service records regarding his symptoms raise validity concerns and are confounded by his marijuana use in the past. Here, as the Veteran has been found to be not credible regarding his claimed in-service stressors and history of mental health symptoms/treatment, any opinion in this case need not consider his statements. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 258-60 (2020). Thus, the March 2025 opinion is adequate as that examiner determined a nexus could not be established without documented mental health treatment during or shortly after service, given that there are validity problems with the Veterans reported symptoms, confounded by marijuana use. There are no conflicting opinions of record.

health symptoms and that available post-service records regarding his symptoms raise validity concerns and are confounded by his marijuana use in the past. Here, as the Veteran has been found to be not credible regarding his claimed in-service stressors and history of mental health symptoms/treatment, any opinion in this case need not consider his statements. See Miller v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 249, 258-60 (2020). Thus, the March 2025 opinion is adequate as that examiner determined a nexus could not be established without documented mental health treatment during or shortly after service, given that there are validity problems with the Veterans reported symptoms, confounded by marijuana use. There are no conflicting opinions of record.

In finding so, the Board recognizes that in the August 2025 HLR request, the Veteran's representative argues that VA committed a pre-decisional duty to assist error, specifically arguing that the examiner's opinion fails to comply with the March 2025 HLR and that the opinion is based on factors the HLR return explicitly stated could not be used. The Board acknowledges that the March 2025 HLR Return indicates that the absence of documented evidence of a specific disability or associated symptoms during or shortly after service should not, alone, serve as the sole basis for a negative opinion and that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and history; it also indicates that chronicity is not required to find a nexus to service. While the Veteran may be competent to report symptoms he has experienced, to reiterate, the Board has found he is not credible, and therefore, it naturally follows that any opinion need not consider that any lay statements from the Veteran are credible, particularly with regard to in-service events and/or continuing psychiatric symptomatology. The March 2025 examiner concluded that without any corroborating medical reports during or shortly after service that a nexus could not be established, explaining there were questions of validity regarding the Veteran's reported symptoms.

The Board also recognizes that at the March 2025 HLR informal conference that the Veteran's attorney argued there was no opinion addressing, in pertinent, unspecified depressive disorder or GAD. The Board further acknowledges that the June 2025 rating decision contains favorable findings that an October 2020 examination contains diagnoses of unspecified depressive disorder and GAD and that hospital reports from 2020 show the Veteran was treated for MDD with anxiety and psychosis. The appeal period in the current case begins with the Veteran's April 2024 Supplemental Claim. As the diagnoses from 2020 are not within the appeal period, the Board does not find opinions considering these diagnoses are warranted.

Further, to the extent that VA treatment records during the appeal period (specifically, a May 2024 record) reflect assessments of bipolar 1 disorder and GAD, there is no indication these diagnoses are in accordance with DSM-5 criteria. These records were reviewed by the medical professional who performed the July 2024 examination and the examiner did not find those diagnoses were present in accordance with DSM-5 criteria. The Board finds the July 2024 examination to be more probative as it provides a formal diagnostic assessment and application of DSM-5 diagnostic criteria; in contrast, VA treatment records during the appeal period, including the May 2024 record, contain no indication these diagnoses are in accordance with DSM-5 diagnostic criteria.

Here, the evidence of record weighs persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder which is related to his service, and therefore, the claim must be denied.

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. O'Connell

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