PSYCHOSES

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from May 1966 to January 1970, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran reported experiencing traumatic events during service, including being fired upon by Vietnamese forces while aboard his ship, hearing gunshots during a return trip from Panama, fearing for his life at a border station due to guerillas, and experiencing distress from late-night broadcasts during service. He also reported heightened tension and concern for safety after the first ambassador was killed by a guerrilla force in Guatemala. The Veteran stated these stressors led to the onset of his mental health symptoms. The AOJ found a current psychiatric disability, satisfying the first element for service connection. The Veteran's service treatment records did not document psychiatric issues, but the Board found the Veteran's testimony regarding his experiences credible and competent, satisfying the second element. The VA examiner opined that the condition was less likely than not related to service, citing a lack of documented symptoms. However, the Board found the December 2025 private medical opinion more probative, noting that trauma survivors often suppress symptoms and that military culture can discourage seeking mental health help. The private examiner explained the silence in records and opined that the Veteran's experiences directly led to his psychiatric disorder, finding it as likely as not related to service. The Board assigned little weight to the VA opinion due to its reliance on the lack of documented symptoms and found the private opinion persuasive, granting service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

Rationale

Current psychiatric disability found by AOJ.; Veteran's testimony regarding traumatic service events found credible and competent.; Private medical opinion persuasively linked disorder to service, explaining lack of service records.; VA opinion given little weight due to reliance on lack of documented symptoms.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038783
Decision Date: 04/27/26	Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 251219-625276
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

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

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his active-duty service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from May 1966 to January 1970.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2025 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office, which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). 

In the December 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2026 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. Evidence submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182 was not considered by the Board in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. Here, evidence was not submitted during a period the Board could not consider. Nonetheless, specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

In the case of Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held the Board must refrain from deciding a case until the case proceeds to the point where a docket switch is no longer permitted under the terms of 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(c)(2).  Here, Williams is not for application because the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket and submitted additional evidence in connection with this docket election. Thus, the Board may proceed with adjudication of the appeal prior to the expiration period for changing dockets. 

The Board notes the Veteran's record contains diagnoses of multiple psychiatric disorders, such as unspecified anxiety disorder, insomnia disorder, major depressive disorder, and panic disorder. A claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability is deemed to encompass all psychiatric diagnoses reasonably presented in the record. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Accordingly, the Board has broadened and recharacterized the claims as an acquired psychiatric disorder, which may encompass all possible diagnoses.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 

Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) 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 disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In a June 2025 rating decision, the AOJ found that the Veteran has a currently diagnosed psychiatric disability. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Therefore, the first element of service connection has been met. 

The Veteran's service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a psychiatric disability. However, the Veteran reported that he experienced several traumatic events in service. He reported that while aboard his ship, it was fired on by the Vietnamese. He reported that on his way back to the United States from Panama he heard gunshots. There were also guerillas at the border station, and he feared for his life. He also reported that
4).

In a June 2025 rating decision, the AOJ found that the Veteran has a currently diagnosed psychiatric disability. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Therefore, the first element of service connection has been met. 

The Veteran's service treatment records do not contain complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of a psychiatric disability. However, the Veteran reported that he experienced several traumatic events in service. He reported that while aboard his ship, it was fired on by the Vietnamese. He reported that on his way back to the United States from Panama he heard gunshots. There were also guerillas at the border station, and he feared for his life. He also reported that during service he was up for 36 hours straight due to late night broadcasts and he had to send out orders. During these transmissions, he received disturbing information that bothered him. Lastly, he reported that when he first got to Guatemala, the first ambassador was killed by a guerrilla force, which created more tension and concern for his safety. The Veteran reported that his mental health symptoms had their onset in service due to these stressors. See December 2025 Private Examination. 

The Veteran is competent to report these experiences. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). Further, the Board has no reason to doubt the credibility of the Veteran's statements. Therefore, the Board finds the second element of service connection has been met. 

Regarding the final element of service connection, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2025. The examiner opined that there is insufficient evidence to support that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder began during service. The examiner noted that the lack of documented symptoms or medical evidence linking the onset of an acquired psychiatric disorder to the Veteran's time in service suggests that the condition is not related to military experiences. Thus, the examiner opined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder was caused or incurred during service. 

The Veteran submitted a private medical opinion in December 2025. The private examiner noted that while the Veteran's records are largely silent for indicators of mental health symptoms, it is common for trauma survivors to utilize maladaptive coping such as suppression and avoidance. The private examiner noted the fear of mental health stigma is also quite a typical response in military culture, often encouraging veterans to dismiss and minimize their mental health concerns in the line of duty. The examiner also noted that the Veteran lacked insight into what the symptoms of a psychiatric disorder looked like, making it difficult for him to communicate any concerns with doctors. The private examiner noted that the Veteran identified that he did not know he was having depression or panic attacks until he was told by a psychiatrist. 

The private examiner opined that the Veteran's medical issues (prostate cancer, colon cancer, chronic pain, tinnitus), as well as the traumatic events from serving in the military, have further perpetuated the symptoms associated with his acquired psychiatric disorder. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not experience any mental health symptoms before his traumatic experiences in service. Thus, the examiner opined that it is as likely as not that these experiences led directly to the development of his mental health diagnosis. 

The Board assigns little probative value to the April 2025 VA examiner's opinion as it relies entirely on a lack of documented symptoms in service. 

The Board finds the December 2025 private opinion highly probative. The private opinion is thorough and provides a detailed rationale. The opinion also adequately explains why the Veteran's record is largely silent for indicators of psychiatric symptoms in service and thereafter.

Based on the above, the Board finds the evidence of record persuasively weighs in favor of finding that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his active-duty service. The final element of service connection has been met. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is warranted. The claim is granted.

The Board notes that the theory of secondary service connection is raised by evidence in the record. However, the Board finds that there is enough evidence to grant on a direct basis, which is the greater benefit. Therefore, the theory of secondary service connection will not be addressed.

 

 

D. Martz Ames

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Dennis, Associate Counsel

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. 


, the theory of secondary service connection will not be addressed.

 

 

D. Martz Ames

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. Dennis, Associate Counsel

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.