UNSPECIFIED DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

M. C. WILSON · 2026 · Case ID: A26037862

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from February 1980 to February 1983, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cocaine use disorder. The veteran claimed PTSD due to an in-service assault, specifically a baseball bat attack that caused head injuries. The Board acknowledged a conceded stressor of personal assault and a favorable finding of a current diagnosis of unspecified depressive disorder. However, the veteran's service treatment records were silent regarding any psychiatric complaints. Two VA medical opinions were obtained. The first, from May 2018, found the veteran did not meet DSM-5 criteria for PTSD and opined that his substance use disorders were less likely than not related to the in-service assault. The second, from December 2020, also found the veteran did not meet DSM-5 criteria for PTSD, noting his depression was more likely related to long-term alcohol abuse. This examiner concluded the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in service. The Board found these opinions well-reasoned and assigned them greater probative weight than the veteran's lay statements. The Board also noted that substance use disorders are not service-connected on a primary basis and found no evidence linking the Veteran's alcohol or cocaine use disorders to a service-connected condition. Ultimately, the Board found the persuasive weight of the evidence against service connection for the claimed psychiatric disorder. Service connection for the acquired psychiatric disorder was denied.

Rationale

Service treatment records silent for psychiatric complaints.; VA examinations provided negative nexus opinions.; Examiners found veteran did not meet DSM-5 criteria for PTSD.; Examiners found substance use disorders less likely than not related to in-service assault.; Board found VA opinions persuasive and assigned greater weight.; Weight of evidence against service connection.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210121-133929

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037862
Decision Date: 04/22/26 Archive Date: 04/22/26

DOCKET NO. 210121-133929
DATE: April 22, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cocaine use disorder, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The persuasive weight of evidence is against finding that the Veteran's claimed acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder and cocaine use disorder, is due to service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder and cocaine use disorder, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1980 to February 1983.

The rating decision on appeal was issued in January 2021 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In November 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD that was previously addressed in a June 2018 rating decision. In January 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received and denied the claim based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the decision on appeal and any evidence submitted during an applicable evidentiary window.

In the January 21, 2021, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on February 3, 2025.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision.

In light of the evidence presented, the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD has been recharacterized as a claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cocaine use disorder. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).

Service Connection

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 C.F.R. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

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.
3.303.

PTSD related to personal assault falls within the category of situations in which it is not unusual for there to be an absence of service records documenting the events which the Veteran alleges. See Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 281 (1999). Therefore, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5), a PTSD claim based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the veteran's service records may corroborate the veteran's account of the stressor incident. Examples of such evidence include but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Additionally, where a claim of service connection for PTSD is predicated on an in-service personal assault, VA has a heightened duty to assist requiring that the Veteran be provided notice of the alternative forms of evidence provided for by 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).

Additionally, VA requires a diagnosis that conforms to the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition), to compensate for a psychiatric disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.125.

While service connection for alcohol and drug abuse disabilities on a primary basis is barred, an alcohol or drug abuse disability arising as a direct result of a service-connected psychiatric condition may be service connected. See generally Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (interpreting 38 U.S.C. § 1110). Compensation would only result where there is clear medical evidence establishing that the alcohol or drug abuse disability is indeed caused by a veteran's primary service-connected disability. The Allen case primarily concerns situations where a veteran has a service-connected psychiatric disorder and is attempting to receive additional compensation, etc., for their alcohol or drug abuse on the premise that it is due to or the result of his service-connected psychiatric disability.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, alcohol use disorder, and cocaine use disorder.

The Veteran contends that he has posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to an assault during service. See February 2025 hearing transcript. Specifically, the Veteran contends that he was "vi[ciously] attacked with a baseball bat that resulted in head injuries to the right side of [his] face fracturing [his] temple and jaw. [He] was admitted to 5th general hospital." See May 2018 Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD.

The Board notes the AOJ made a favorable finding in the January 2021 rating decision that the Veteran had a clinical diagnosis of unspecified depressive disorder. Additionally, the AOJ made a favorable finding that the Veteran has a conceded stressor of a personal assault while on active duty. These findings are binding. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. The Veteran is also diagnosed with alcohol use disorder and cocaine use disorder in early remission. See May 2018 VA examination report. Accordingly, the key inquiry is whether the current diagnosis of unspecified depressive disorder is related to the Veteran's service.

The Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) document the Veteran sustained a head injury due to being assaulted by a baseball bat. See January 6, 1983, STR. The Veteran's available STRs are silent for any complaint of or treatment for any psychiatric disorder.

In May 2018, VA obtained a medical opinion for the Veteran's claimed PTSD due to personal assault. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, and as rationale stated the Veteran does not have a diagnosis of PTSD that conforms to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder, 5th edition (DSM-5). The examiner noted the Veteran's had diagnoses of severe alcohol use disorder and cocaine use disorder in early remission. The examiner noted that "substance use disorders are according to DSM V, a suboptimal way of coping with stress, is influenced by cultural attitudes towards substance use, as well as, acquired personal experiences with substance use and heavily influenced by genetics with higher use disorders in families with a history of substance use disorders." The examiner concluded that the Veteran's substance use disorders were less likely than not incurred in or caused by the Veteran's assault with a baseball bat.

In December 2020, VA obtained an additional medical opinion for the Veteran's claimed PTSD due to personal assault. The examiner provided a negative nexus opinion, and as rationale stated the Veteran's symptoms do not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under DSM-5 criteria. The examiner noted the Veteran had diagnoses for unspecified depressive disorder and alcohol use disorder in early remission. The examiner noted that the Veteran "is having depressed mood only after many years of substance abuse," which the Board notes was not indicated in service. The examiner noted that "the depression was more likely related to his long-term alcohol abuse. Those with alcohol dependence have a greater probability of major depressive disorder after one year." The examiner went on to note that the Veteran's brother "reported in his support letter that he started drinking after his father insisted he get a job which was 9 months after he returned from the military." The examiner concluded that the Veteran's claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness.

When read together, the Board finds the examiners' medical findings were based on consideration of all pertinent medical records and are supported with complete rationale. See Nieves-Rodriguez, supra; Stefl, supra. The Board assigns significant probative weight to the medical opinions of record.

As acknowledged above, service connection cannot be granted for drug and alcohol-related conditions as a primary disability; and as to the Veteran's alcohol and cocaine use disorders being caused by or aggravated by his service-connected conditions, the weight of the competent evidence of record is persuasively against such a finding. No clinician has linked the Veteran's alcohol and cocaine use disorders to a service-connected disability.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's belief that he has a mental health condition that is related directly to service. The Veteran, however, is not qualified to render a medical opinion as to whether there is a nexus between any diagnosed mental health condition and his military service. A lay person is competent to report observable symptomatology of an injury or illness, but they are not competent to render expert opinions or diagnoses of complex medical conditions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007). While the Veteran has submitted lay statements in support of his claim, the Board finds these statements do not outweigh the conclusions in the VA medical examinations and opinions, which were based upon medical literature and knowledge, and the Veteran's medical history. Consequently, the Board affords greater probative weight to the VA examiners' conclusions in the VA medical opinions.

Overall, the evidence does not demonstrate that the claimed disability had onset in service, or is otherwise etiologically related to service.

As the persuasive weight of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is

not applicable, and the appeal must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

M. C. WILSON

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board T. Griggs

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