MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

Summary

The Veteran, who served from November 1969 to January 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for a bilateral leg disorder and the initial rating for major depressive disorder. The Board granted a 50 percent rating for major depressive disorder, finding that the Veteran continuously pursued his claim and that a January 2026 VA examination supported this rating. The Board noted that while the Veteran's claim was initially rated at 30 percent, subsequent continuous appeals and a new VA examination led to the favorable rating. The Board also addressed the procedural history, explaining that only evidence of record at the time of the October 2025 AOJ decision could be considered, and any later-submitted evidence would require a Supplemental Claim. For the bilateral leg disorder, the Board denied service connection. Although the AOJ favorably found that treatment records showed leg swelling, the Board found no evidence of in-service event, injury, or disease, nor any current diagnosis or persistent symptoms. Service treatment records were negative for any relevant complaints or findings. The Board concluded that the Veteran's bare assertion of a link to service was insufficient to require a VA examination, and the evidence weighed against service connection, thus denying the claim.

Rationale

Continuous pursuit of claim; January 2026 VA examination supported 50% rating; Effective date based on continuous appeal

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038983
Decision Date: 04/27/26	Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 260303-640411
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran continuously pursued his claim for service connection for major depressive disorder.

2. The evidence weighs against the finding that the Veteran has a bilateral leg disorder with edema.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an initial disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

2. A bilateral leg disorder is not related to active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1969 to January 1971. The Board thanks the Veteran for his service. 

On August 23, 2017, the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). Pub. L. No. 115-55, 131 Stat. 1105 (2017) went into effect. This law creates a new framework for Veterans dissatisfied with VA's decision on their claim to seek review on or after February 19, 2019. As this case is an appeal of a February 2026 rating decision, this decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework. 

In February 2026, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 (Decision Review Request: Board Appeal) electing direct review by a Veterans Law Judge.

The Board notes that the Veteran has not waived his right to switch dockets. However, given the Veteran's age and his placement on the advanced docket, the Board finds that a waiver is not warranted.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 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. 

EFFECTIVE DATE

1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 50 percent for major depressive disorder

The Veteran argues that his initial disability rating for his acquired psychiatric disorder should be 50 percent. Given that the Veteran continuously pursued his claim, the Board agrees.

The assignment of effective dates of awards is generally governed by 38 U.S.C. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Except as otherwise provided, the effective date of an evaluation and an award of pension, compensation, or dependency and indemnity compensation based on an original claim or a claim reopened after final disallowance, or a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date the claim arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

For claims for an increase in a service-connected disability, if an increase in disability occurred within one year prior to the claim, the increase is effective as of the date the increase was "factually ascertainable." If the increase occurred more than one year prior to the claim, the increase is effective the date of claim. If the increase occurred after the date of claim, the effective date is the date of increase. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1), (2); VAOPGCPREC 12-98.

In determining when an increase is "factually ascertainable," all of the evidence must be looked to, including testimonial evidence and expert medical opinions, and an effective date must be assigned based on that evidence. See McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App.
 as of the date the increase was "factually ascertainable." If the increase occurred more than one year prior to the claim, the increase is effective the date of claim. If the increase occurred after the date of claim, the effective date is the date of increase. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1), (2); VAOPGCPREC 12-98.

In determining when an increase is "factually ascertainable," all of the evidence must be looked to, including testimonial evidence and expert medical opinions, and an effective date must be assigned based on that evidence. See McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35-36 (2000); VAOPGCPREC 12-98. Thus, "it is the information in a medical opinion, and not the date the medical opinion [that] was provided that is relevant when assigning an effective date." Tatum v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 139, 145 (2010); see also Young v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2014).

The Veteran initially submitted an intent to file received on July 3, 2025. On July 17, 2025, VA received a fully developed claim from the Veteran, which included a claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

An October 2025 rating decision granted the Veteran's claim but provided a 30 percent rating for the Veteran's depressive disorder. Within a month of the rating decision, the Veteran submitted a new fully developed claim and a request for a higher-level review.

A new VA examination was provided in January 2026 which found that the Veteran had insomnia as a part of his depressive disorder and that the depressive disorder warranted a 50 percent rating. A 50 precent rating from the date of the examination was granted in a January 2026 rating decision. The Veteran's higher-level review resulted in a February 2026 rating decision affirming the current staged ratings for the Veteran's depressive disorder.

However, the Board notes that the Veteran continuously appealed his claim and did not stop his appeal at any point. Given that the Veteran continuously appealed his claim, the Veteran should be in receipt of an initial 50% rating for his depressive disorder.

SERVICE CONNECTION

1. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral leg disorder

Veterans are entitled to compensation if they develop a disability "resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty." 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 (wartime service), 1131 (peacetime service).

To establish entitlement to service-connected compensation benefits, a Veteran 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 -the so-called 'nexus' requirement." See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. See Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1, 8 (1999).

In the February 2026 rating decision on appeal that addressed the Veteran's claim, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran's treatment records establish that the Veteran had swelling in his legs. The Board is bound by favorable findings of the AOJ unless rebutted by evidence that identifies clear and unmistakable (undebatable) error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

The Veteran did not make a specific argument as to how the Veteran's claim is related to service.

Service treatment records do not show any relevant complaints, objective findings, treatment, diagnosis, or any other manifestations of a leg disorder. At the Veteran's separation examination, dated approximately December 7, 1970, clinical evaluation revealed that the relevant systems were normal and there were not any relevant diagnoses, symptoms, or complaints. In a separate Report of Medical History, dated approximately December 7, 1970, the Veteran specifically denied any relevant symptoms.

In its rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) concluded that the evidence did not show an event, disease or injury in service. The AOJ also found that
(c).

The Veteran did not make a specific argument as to how the Veteran's claim is related to service.

Service treatment records do not show any relevant complaints, objective findings, treatment, diagnosis, or any other manifestations of a leg disorder. At the Veteran's separation examination, dated approximately December 7, 1970, clinical evaluation revealed that the relevant systems were normal and there were not any relevant diagnoses, symptoms, or complaints. In a separate Report of Medical History, dated approximately December 7, 1970, the Veteran specifically denied any relevant symptoms.

In its rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) concluded that the evidence did not show an event, disease or injury in service. The AOJ also found that the Veteran's evidence did not show a currently diagnosed disability.

In short, there is no reliable evidence linking the Veteran's claimed disorders to service. The Board notes the Veteran's assertions with respect to his disorders; however, the Board finds that there has been no evidence submitted that establishes that he either had the disorders or currently has the disorders. This does not mean that the Veteran currently does not have the disorders; rather, in terms of establishing an entitlement to a service connection for the disorders, the Veteran has not demonstrated that he has the disorders.

The Board recognizes that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination specific to these claims. However, no examination is necessary for the adjudication of the claim. In determining whether the duty to assist requires that a VA medical examination be provided or medical opinion obtained with respect to a veteran's claim for benefits, there are four factors for consideration.

These four factors are: (1) whether there is competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) whether there is evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or evidence establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumption period; (3) whether there is an indication that the disability or symptoms may be associated with the veteran's service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) whether there otherwise is sufficient competent medical evidence of record to make a decision on the claim. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4).

Here, there is no evidence of a relevant in-service event, injury or disease and the Board finds that the bare assertion (via the compensation claim) that the disorders are related to service amounts to a mere conclusory generalized lay statement that a service event or illness caused the claimant's current condition, and thus it is insufficient to require the Secretary to provide an examination. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). Furthermore, other than lay assertions, there is no evidence that the disability may be associated with service. Lastly, the Veteran has not presented competent evidence of current disability or persistent symptoms of a disability. A mere statement that he has a bilateral leg disorder, without more evidence, does not establish the presence of disability or persistent symptoms of a disability.

Accordingly, the most probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim of entitlement to service connection for the claimed disorder. The contemporaneous records establish that relevant systems were normal at separation and service treatment records do not document any relevant notations. The more probative evidence establishes that the Veteran did not have the claimed disorder during service and that the disorders are not related to any event in service. The evidence establishes that the remote onset of the claimed disorder is unrelated to service. As there is not an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply and service connection for the claimed disorder(s) is not warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

 

 

Melanie J. Mann

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Nelson, Jonah A

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.