ANXIETY DISORDER

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army Reserve from 2017 to 2024 with periods of active duty in 2017 and 2022, appeals the denial of service connection for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), major depressive disorder (MDD), bruxism, migraines/headaches, tinnitus, bilateral hip pain, bilateral iliotibial band syndrome, and bilateral leg stress fractures. The Board denied service connection for all claimed conditions. For the psychiatric claims, the Board found no competent evidence of a current mental health diagnosis, noting that while service treatment records showed treatment for alcohol dependence and an adjustment disorder, a February 2025 VA examination concluded the veteran did not meet DSM-5 criteria for any mental health diagnosis and reported only mild, transient anxiety symptoms. The Board also noted the absence of post-service treatment records or VA treatment for these conditions. For the musculoskeletal claims, the Board found no competent evidence of current disabilities. Service treatment records indicated acute stress fractures and iliotibial band syndrome with no further treatment, and intermittent hip pain complaints that resolved by the time of separation from service. The veteran failed to attend rescheduled VA examinations for these conditions without good cause. The Board found the evidence weighed against current disabilities, noting the absence of post-service treatment and the veteran's own reports of no current treatment for joint pain. The Board concluded that any favorable findings suggesting current diagnoses were clear and unmistakable errors, as the evidence clearly showed no current functional impairment.

Rationale

No competent evidence of current mental health diagnosis; VA examiner found no DSM-5 diagnosis; Veteran reported only mild, transient anxiety symptoms; No current treatment for mental health conditions

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040479
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250824-579220
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder (MDD) is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for bruxism is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for migraines/headaches is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left hip pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right hip pain is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left iliotibial band syndrome is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right iliotibial band syndrome is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for left leg stress fracture is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for right leg stress fracture is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran does not have current psychiatric disorders.

2. Because the Veteran is not service-connected for psychiatric disorders, secondary service connection is unavailable for bruxism, migraines/headaches, and tinnitus. 

3. The evidence clearly and unmistakably shows the Veteran does not have current bilateral hip pain, iliotibial band syndrome, and leg stress fractures.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for GAD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for service connection for MDD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for bruxism have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

4. The criteria for service connection for migraines/headaches have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

5. The criteria for service connection for tinnitus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310.

6. The criteria for service connection for left hip pain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

7. The criteria for service connection for right hip pain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

8. The criteria for service connection for left iliotibial band syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

9. The criteria for service connection for right iliotibial band syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

10. The criteria for service connection for left leg stress fracture have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

11. The criteria for service connection for right leg stress fracture have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran was a member of the Army Reserve from 2017 to 2024, with a period of active duty for training from June 2017 to October 2017 and a period of active duty from January 2022 to September 2022.

In the August 24, 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 April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ
7; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran was a member of the Army Reserve from 2017 to 2024, with a period of active duty for training from June 2017 to October 2017 and a period of active duty from January 2022 to September 2022.

In the August 24, 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 April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was 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, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

The Board considered the service records submitted by the Veteran with her VA Form 10182. 

Finally, VA regulations provide that, "[u]pon request, a claimant is entitled to a hearing on any issue involved in a claim...before VA issues notice of a decision on an initial or supplemental claim." 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(d)(1). In November 2022, VA amended VA Form 21-526EZ and in May 2024 VA amended VA Form 20-0995 to inform claimants of the right to a hearing at any time during the claims process. The initial claim in this appeal was filed on VA Form 21-526EZ after it was amended; therefore, the Veteran received the requisite notice.

1. Entitlement to service connection for GAD is denied.

2. Entitlement to service connection for MDD is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for GAD and/or MDD. After consideration of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection is not warranted because there is no competent evidence of a psychiatric disability.

Her service treatment records, which appear to be complete, show treatment for alcohol dependence and an adjustment disorder in May 2022, during her active duty service. In June 2022, she reported being on antidepressants to manage alcohol cravings. In August 2022, shortly before separation from active duty service, she reported that her alcohol dependence was in remission, and a mental status evaluation was normal. In an October 2023 periodic health assessment, which was completed after her active duty service, the Veteran reported that she received care for alcohol abuse and anxiety, including medication, but she was not taking any medication at that time, and she denied behavioral health and substance abuse issues in the past month. She noted she wanted to schedule an appointment for marriage counseling, however. The examining provider concluded there were no concerns that required referral, and that behavioral health "is a go." 

The Veteran was afforded a VA mental disorders examination in February 2025, and the examiner concluded the Veteran did not have a mental health diagnosis that conforms with the DSM-5 criteria. She reported that she has positive relationships with her husband and friends, she is obtaining her bachelor's degree in human resources, and she is employed as a receptionist. She reported that her anxiety symptoms decreased after service and she is not receiving therapy nor taking medication. The examiner stated that while the Veteran endorses mild anxiety, she denied clinically significant mental health symptoms since leaving service. Instead, her current symptoms are transient and do not clinically impact her day-to-day functioning. 

Furthermore, there are no treatment records that document a mental health diagnosis, and the Veteran did not report that she was receiving VA or private treatment. While her service treatment records demonstrate she was referred to VA for mental health treatment, the Veteran denied undergoing mental health treatment during the VA examination and did not report VA treatment on her claim forms or elsewhere. 

Service connection may only be granted for a current disability; when the claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. Because the competent medical evidence shows no current disability, the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for bruxism is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for migraines/headaches is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for bruxism as secondary to her psychiatric disorders and for migraines/headaches and t
 referred to VA for mental health treatment, the Veteran denied undergoing mental health treatment during the VA examination and did not report VA treatment on her claim forms or elsewhere. 

Service connection may only be granted for a current disability; when the claimed condition is not shown, there may be no grant of service connection. Because the competent medical evidence shows no current disability, the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for bruxism is denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for migraines/headaches is denied.

5. Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied. 

The Veteran seeks service connection for bruxism as secondary to her psychiatric disorders and for migraines/headaches and tinnitus as secondary to the bruxism. Because service connection is not warranted for a psychiatric disorder, these claims must be denied as well. 

6. Entitlement to service connection for left hip pain is denied.

7. Entitlement to service connection for right hip pain is denied.

8. Entitlement to service connection for left iliotibial band syndrome is denied.

9. Entitlement to service connection for right iliotibial band syndrome is denied.

10. Entitlement to service connection for left leg stress fracture is denied.

11. Entitlement to service connection for right leg stress fracture is denied.

The Veteran seeks service connection for bilateral hip pain, iliotibial band syndrome, and leg stress fractures. The Board finds, however, that there is no competent evidence of current disabilities, and service connection is not warranted.

Her service treatment records, which appear to be complete, show results consistent with stress fractures in August 2017, during a period of active duty for training. Later service records, including from active duty for training and active duty, are negative for follow up complaints and treatment. She was treated for left iliotibial band syndrome in April 2022, during active duty service, and later active duty records are negative for follow up complaints and treatment. Finally, her service records show intermittent right hip pain complaints in 2017, during active duty for training, and bilateral hip complaints in 2022, during active duty. In the October 2023 periodic health assessment, completed one year after separation from active duty, she reported that she received medical care for recurring joint pain but was no longer under treatment for it. The examining provider determined that there were no concerns that required referral, including physical symptoms. 

There are also no post-service treatment records in the claims file, and the Veteran did not report that she was receiving VA or private treatment, including on her claim forms. 

The Veteran was scheduled to undergo VA examinations for these conditions in February 2025 and April 2025 but failed to show for the examinations. In March 2025, she reported that she missed the examinations due to a motor vehicle accident. The examinations were rescheduled for April 2025, but the Veteran did not provide good cause for missing these examinations. When a claimant fails to report for an examination scheduled in conjunction with an original compensation claim, the claim shall be rated based on the evidence of record. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b). Accordingly, the Board will proceed with the claims. 

The Board finds that the evidence weighs against current disabilities. The Veteran's service treatment records show that the stress fractures and iliotibial band syndrome were acute conditions, with no further treatment. Regarding the bilateral hip pain, the Veteran reported in October 2023 that she was no longer receiving treatment for recurring joint pain, and there is no evidence of a current disability during the appeal period. Although the Veteran seeks service connection for hip pain, the available lay and medical evidence is negative for diagnoses or symptoms that cause functional impairment which limits earning capacity and would constitute a disability. See Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

The Board notes that the favorable findings in the April 2025 rating decision, which are binding on the Board unless rebutted by evidence of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), state that the Veteran has "been diagnosed with a disability." See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). The favorable findings only speak to treatment in service, not disabilities during the appeal period.

To the extent the favorable findings can be construed to mean the Veteran has current diagnoses of hip pain, iliotibial pain syndrome, and stress fractures, the Board finds that the evidence clearly and unmistakably shows the Veteran does not have current disabilities, and the favorable findings that she has current disabilities were clear and unmistakable errors. See id. Specifically, there is no competent evidence of the disorders during the appeal period, and she denied current treatment for joint pain as recently as October 2023, one year after separation from active duty service. The Veteran did not attend the scheduled
 a disability." See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). The favorable findings only speak to treatment in service, not disabilities during the appeal period.

To the extent the favorable findings can be construed to mean the Veteran has current diagnoses of hip pain, iliotibial pain syndrome, and stress fractures, the Board finds that the evidence clearly and unmistakably shows the Veteran does not have current disabilities, and the favorable findings that she has current disabilities were clear and unmistakable errors. See id. Specifically, there is no competent evidence of the disorders during the appeal period, and she denied current treatment for joint pain as recently as October 2023, one year after separation from active duty service. The Veteran did not attend the scheduled VA examinations nor did she provide good cause. Critically, she reported on her claim form that she was last treated for these conditions in 2017 and 2022. 

The Board thus finds the evidence clearly and unmistakably shows no evidence of current bilateral hip pain, iliotibial band syndrome, and leg stress fracture disabilities, and service connection is not warranted. Accordingly, the claims are denied, 

 

 

MICHELLE L. KANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	M. Lavan

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.