ADJUSTMENT DISORDER

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 2016 to May 2019 and again from October 2020 to July 2022, appealed the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than PTSD. The appeal was filed following an April 2025 rating decision, which processed a December 2024 supplemental claim. The Board of Veterans' Appeals reviewed the evidence of record as of the April 2025 decision. The veteran's claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder was previously denied in November 2023 due to a lack of current diagnosis, and this decision became final as it was not appealed. The Board found that no new and relevant evidence was submitted between the November 2023 denial and the April 2025 decision to warrant readjudication. The veteran's lay contentions of a psychiatric disorder related to deployment stress were not considered probative evidence for establishing a diagnosis under DSM-5 criteria. The Board noted that VA treatment records were obtained and reviewed, and that VA satisfied its duty to assist. As there was no competent medical evidence demonstrating a diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder, the Board denied the appeal, advising the veteran to file a Supplemental Claim if they wished VA to consider further evidence.

Rationale

No new and relevant evidence submitted after prior final denial.; Lay assertions are not probative evidence for DSM-5 diagnosis.; No competent medical evidence of acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosis.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038487
Decision Date: 04/24/26	Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 250427-542336
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence has not been received to readjudicate the claim for entitlement to service connection an acquired psychiatric disorder, other than posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and the claim is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was denied in a November 2023 rating decision, since that decision new and relevant evidence has not been received to readjudicate the claim during an evidentiary window.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria to readjudicate the claim for entitlement service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501, 20.1103.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had confirmed service from January 2016 to May 2019 and from October 2020 to July 2022. 

This matter was appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2025 rating decision through submission of an April 2025 VA Form 10182 with election of the direct review appeal 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 claim[s], 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 notes that an August 2025 rating decision has granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with an assigned effective date of December 20, 2024. 

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 than 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).

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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 provides that a Veteran, upon request, is entitled to a hearing prior to VA's adjudication of an initial or supplemental claim.

Readjudication of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder

New and Relevant Evidence

Except as otherwise provided, a claimant or his or her authorized representative who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If new
 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 provides that a Veteran, upon request, is entitled to a hearing prior to VA's adjudication of an initial or supplemental claim.

Readjudication of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder

New and Relevant Evidence

Except as otherwise provided, a claimant or his or her authorized representative who disagrees with a prior VA decision may file a supplemental claim, regardless of whether the claim is pending or has become finally adjudicated. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to the supplemental claim, the AOJ will readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501. New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim, including evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. Id.

New evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1).

Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim, including evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(2).

If new and relevant evidence is not presented or secured, the AOJ will issue a decision finding that there was insufficient evidence to readjudicate the claim.

The Veteran seeks readjudication of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

Service connection for "depression and anxiety" was denied in a November 2023 rating decision. The claim was denied because the evidence at that time did not show a currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder. This rating decision was not appealed and therefore became final. 

The Veteran submitted a December 2024 VA Form 21-526 (Application for Compensation and Pension) seeking service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. This submission was processed as a supplemental claim by the AOJ per the April 2025 rating decision on appeal. In the April 2025 rating decision the AOJ adjudicated the issue of entitlement to service connection for an adjustment disorder. With regards to any other claimed acquired psychiatric disorders, pursuant to Clemons, the claim on appeal is more accurately characterized as and is expanded to consider all psychiatric diagnoses of record. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). To the extent that the AOJ implicitly found that new and relevant evidence had been submitted and readjudicated this claim on its merits in the April 2025 rating decision, the Board finds that this was clearly and unmistakably erroneous. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c), 3.2501 (favorable findings determined by the AOJ are binding on the Board unless they are clearly and unmistakably erroneous). As will be explained in more detail below, new and relevant evidence was not submitted to warrant readjudication of this claim.

The initial question before the Board is whether the Veteran submitted evidence after the November 2023 rating decision during an evidentiary window and, if so, whether that evidence is new and relevant to his service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder. As noted above, when this claim was previously denied in the November 2023 rating decision there was no evidence in the record indicating that the Veteran had been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disorder. In the December 2024 VA Form 21-526 (Application for Compensation and Pension) the Veteran reiterated his lay contentions that he has an acquired psychiatric disorder related generally to the stresses of his deployment. 

Again, relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim, including evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(2). At issue with this claim is whether there is competent medical evidence which demonstrates that the Veteran has been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disorder. There was no competent medical evidence submitted from the time of the November 2023 rating decision to the April 2025 rating decision on appeal demonstrating a diagnosis for any acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran's lay assertions are not probative evidence which is relevant to whether an acquired psychiatric disorder has been diagnosed pursuant to the DSM-5 criteria. service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. See Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241 (202
 evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(2). At issue with this claim is whether there is competent medical evidence which demonstrates that the Veteran has been diagnosed with an acquired psychiatric disorder. There was no competent medical evidence submitted from the time of the November 2023 rating decision to the April 2025 rating decision on appeal demonstrating a diagnosis for any acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran's lay assertions are not probative evidence which is relevant to whether an acquired psychiatric disorder has been diagnosed pursuant to the DSM-5 criteria. service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. See Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241 (2022) (a DSM-5 diagnosis is required for service connection to be awarded under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130).

Absent such evidence, the Board finds that evidence received since the prior final denial in November 2023 is not both "new and relevant" to the Veteran's claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.  Therefore, readjudication of this claim is not warranted and the appeal is denied. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2501, 20.1103.

 

 

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Mckone, Kyle

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.