DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

WILLIAM H. DONNELLY · 2026 · Case ID: A26039288

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps from September 2006 to September 2011, appeals the denial of an increased rating for depression, currently rated at 10 percent. The veteran sought a higher rating, specifically above 10 percent, based on symptoms of depression. The Board reviewed the veteran's service treatment records, finding no mental health treatment during service. A September 2021 VA examination diagnosed Other Specified Depressive Disorder, with the examiner noting mild or transient symptoms that decreased work efficiency only during significant stress, and a generally euthymic affect. The veteran reported significant mental health impacts, including loneliness, difficulty with romantic relationships, and impaired concentration due to tinnitus, but also reported being employed full-time. A February 2022 private DBQ described more severe symptoms, including panic attacks, impaired judgment, and obsessional rituals, but the Board found these findings contradicted the veteran's own statements and the VA examination, deeming the private opinion less probative. The Board found the veteran's February 2022 statement regarding symptom severity not credible, citing his continued full-time employment and ability to gain new employment, and the lack of specific details supporting his claims of severe limitation. The Board concluded that the veteran's symptoms did not rise to the level required for a 30 percent rating, finding the evidence persuasively against the claim and thus the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable. The appeal for an increased rating for depression was denied.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for mental health treatment.; VA examiner noted mild or transient symptoms, decreasing work efficiency only during significant stress.; Veteran reported significant mental health impacts but also full-time employment.; Board found veteran's statements regarding symptom severity not credible.; Private DBQ findings contradicted veteran's statements and VA exam.; Board afforded greater probative weight to VA examiner's opinion.; Evidence persuasively against claim; benefit of doubt doctrine not applicable.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

220307-227005

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039288
Decision Date: 04/28/26 Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 220307-227005
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for Other Specified Depressive Disorder (depression) is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran's depression is manifested by symptoms which most closely approximate occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress; depressed mood was present.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for a rating in excess 10 percent for depression have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1 4.7, 4.21, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from September 2006 to September 2011. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeal (Board) on appeal from the November 2021 rating decision of an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) of the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In the March 2022 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket, appealing the above issues. The Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal corresponding to the issue on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his attorney with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303.

In May 2025, the Board granted a rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for sinusitis, and denied a to a rating in excess of 10 percent for depression.

The Veteran appealed the May 2025 Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a December 2025 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the parties agreed to vacate and remand only the issue of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for depression, finding that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its decision that addressed an argument explicitly raised by the Veteran and the probative value of the February 2022 private medical opinion

With respect to the claims decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty-to-assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has advanced any procedural arguments in relation to VA's duty to notify and assist. Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which assigns ratings based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Pertinent regulations do not require that all cases show all findings specified by the Rating Schedule, but that findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the resulting disability and, above all, coordination of rating with impairment of function, will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21.

In order to evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran's condition. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. In other words, the evaluations may be staged. Staged ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods during the appeal period where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App
of rating with impairment of function, will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21.

Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

Depression is rated under the general rating formula for mental disorders 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran's depression has been rated as 10 percent disabling. The Veteran seeks an increased rating.

A 10 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by continuous medication. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

A 30 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

A 50 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

A 70 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

A 100 percent rating is assigned for total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has noted the "symptom-driven nature" of the General Rating Formula and that "a Veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration." Vasquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 116 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit has explained that "symptomatology should be the fact-finder's primary focus when deciding entitlement to a given disability rating." Id. at 117.

The psychiatric symptoms listed in the above rating criteria are not exclusive but are examples of typical symptoms for the listed percentage ratings. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002). However, if the evidence shows that a veteran has symptoms or effects that cause occupational or social impairment equivalent to what would be caused by the symptoms listed in the diagnostic code, the appropriate equivalent rating will be assigned. Id. at 443.

Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 116 (Fed. Cir. 2013). The Federal Circuit has explained that "symptomatology should be the fact-finder's primary focus when deciding entitlement to a given disability rating." Id. at 117.

The Veteran has not identified any treatments records regarding his mental health, and has stated that he has not sought treatment for his mental health.

He was afforded a September 2021 VA examination. He was diagnosed with Other Specified Depressive Disorder. The Veteran reported that his tinnitus diagnosis had impaired his social and romantic relationships, work, and school performance. He reported at times having difficulty distinguishing noises from the environment, such as cell phone rings, or bells, or any ringing of any sort. He also reported that his tinnitus is so bad at times that it impairs his ability to concentrate during conversations with others. He reported that his struggles with this condition have impacted his mental health. The examiner checked occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress. The Veteran described feeling like he has few friends that understand his condition (tinnitus), and he feels lonely at times. He reported that his romantic relationships have suffered due to his tinnitus because he cannot distinguish the sound in his head from other ringing in his environment because the ringing in his ears is so profound at time. He stated that once romantic interests find out about his condition, they often leave. He reported difficulty as a customs officer due to his tinnitus, but did not explain how tinnitus affected his job. He reported when he was attending college, tinnitus impacted his abilities to pay attention and concentrate in the classroom. He attributed difficulty in forming new bonds and relationships with others due to his chronic tinnitus and that peers have made fun of him or looked at him "strangely" due to his tinnitus. He stated that tinnitus had impacted his self-worth, self-esteem, and mood. The examiner listed the Veteran's mental health symptoms as consisting only of depressed mood. The examiner noted the Veteran was alert and fully oriented. He displayed a euthymic affect and was cooperative. His appearance was neat and appropriate for the situation. His thought process was coherent and linear. He was engaged throughout the interview.

In a February 2022 statement received with the NOD, the Veteran stated his mental health symptoms interfere with dealings with his co-workers and interacting with others. He reported that he isolates himself whenever possible, has reduced productivity, sudden episodes of unexplainable panic and sense of losing control, daily panic and depression, difficulty remembering simple information, problems understanding complicated instructions, frequent trouble making decisions in his own best interest, frequent trouble with motivation, trouble having meaningful interactions with others, extreme difficulty dealing with stress especially at work, frequent repetitive thoughts about surroundings, and fear for his own safety and safety of family.

The Veteran's statement provided a bullet list of symptoms that he experiences followed by broad statements about their effect on his functioning without explaining specifically how these symptoms affect his daily functioning. The Veteran stated they felt the list of symptoms was not adequately addressed by the VA examiner and that the examination was "very hurried."

In a February 2022, private DBQ received with the NOD and completed via virtual examination, the Veteran stated he had not had mental health treatment and was not taking medication. He reported no long-term romantic interests, no friends besides other Veterans, and no social activities. He reported decreased self-esteem, poor sleep, irritability, and reduced libido. He was employed full-time. The examiner listed the Veteran's symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, panic attacks more than once a week, near continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, memory loss for names, difficulty in understanding complex commands, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, disturbances in motivation and mood, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities, and disorientation to time or place. The examiner provided the following symptoms and examples: impaired judgement e.g. having unprotected sex; obsessional rituals e.g. repeatedly checked locks, obsessively early and upset if others are not ready; disorientation to time e.g. losses track of time; and difficulty understanding complex commands e.g. asks extra questions, asks to
, panic attacks more than once a week, near continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, memory loss for names, difficulty in understanding complex commands, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, disturbances in motivation and mood, difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities, and disorientation to time or place. The examiner provided the following symptoms and examples: impaired judgement e.g. having unprotected sex; obsessional rituals e.g. repeatedly checked locks, obsessively early and upset if others are not ready; disorientation to time e.g. losses track of time; and difficulty understanding complex commands e.g. asks extra questions, asks to repeat sentences or parts of sentences due to loss of aural acuity from tinnitus, including during the examination. Behavioral observations were that the Veteran was punctual, alert, oriented x6, made good eye contact, was cooperative, dressed casually and appropriately, denied suicidal and homicidal ideations, and needed repeated questions due to difficulty comprehending speech due to tinnitus.

The private DBQ form states that the evidence reviewed was "Veterans VA claims file, VBMS, military service treatment records, VA medical records from 2011, independent of COVID." The examiner did not cite to any specific examples, symptoms, or anything else related to the Veteran's mental health that were in these records that were reviewed. Indeed, it is not possible to cite to specific examples, symptoms, or anything else related to, the Veteran's mental health in the records because such do not exist. The only records concerning the Veteran's mental health are his February 2022 statement, the September 2021 VA examination, and the private February 2022 DBQ.

Moreover, the Veteran's statement about his symptoms are simply a generalized list of his symptoms, followed by a statement that the symptom reduces his ability to work or interact with others. However, he does not include any specifics as to why such symptoms are limiting or even how often he experiences most of his symptoms. He stated that he is limited physically by his service-connected disabilities which "drastically affects" his work efficiency. However, he reported to the September 2021 VA examiner that he was employed full-time. While he reported he lost promotional opportunities at one of his jobs because they accused him of taking too much sick leave for sinusitis, he did not report that he was ever fired or disciplined, and there is no indication he had trouble getting along with his coworkers. Moreover, his statement did not include symptoms that were listed in the private DBQ, i.e. that he has impaired judgement e.g. having unprotected sex; obsessional rituals e.g. repeatedly checked locks, obsessively early and upset if others are not ready; disorientation to time e.g. losses track of time (and yet the examiner stated the Veteran was fully oriented in all 6 spheres). Thus, the Board finds the private DBQ findings contradict the Veteran's February 2022 statements about his symptoms, and thus it cannot be relied on as an accurate representation of the Veteran's depression symptoms.

While the Veteran contends that the September 2021 VA examination was hurried, the examiner elicited from the Veteran and related a full history of the Veteran's life, including family, education, occupation, legal, and mental health before, during, and after military service.

Finally, the Board finds the Veteran is not credible in regards to the severity of his symptoms of depression. He describes crippling symptoms and yet remains employed full-time, able to gain new employment as evidenced by his reports of switching jobs, and maintains friendship with fellow Veterans per his own reports. His February 2022 statement is simply not believable in the face of his own reports to both the VA examiner and private examiner.

The Board finds the September 2021 VA examiner's opinion is entitled to greater probative weight than the private February 2022 opinion, as the opinion considered a more thorough review of the Veteran's reported history as documented in the claim file, providing sufficient supporting rationale, and lacked discrepancies found in the private opinion. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Thus, the Board affords less probative value to the private February 2022 opinion.

Based on the Veteran's overall symptomatology and the resulting impairment stemming therefrom, the Board finds that the disability picture does not rise to the level of severity contemplated by the 30 percent rating for depression. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434. He reported isolating himself and having difficulty at work, but maintained full-time employment and reported using his sick leave for his service-connected sinusitis, not depression. While he reported difficulty dealing with stressful situations and difficulty concentrating, these symptoms were attributed to his service connected
Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Thus, the Board affords less probative value to the private February 2022 opinion.

There is no indication the Veteran had any suicidal ideations during the period on appeal. There was no evidence of impaired memory. He has consistently been cooperative and communicative, with clear thought processes and no hallucinations or delusions. Thus, the reported symptoms of depression did not rise to the level of a 30 percent rating. The evidence does not show an occasional decrease in work efficiency or intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, as shown by his continued overall productivity and social functioning. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine; the evidence is persuasively against the Veteran's claim, and the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).

WILLIAM H. DONNELLY

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board L.M. Barletta

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