MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

Summary

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. military from December 1988 to April 1994. The Veteran appealed the denial of service connection for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) reviewed the case based on evidence of record up to the July 2021 rating decision, with consideration for evidence submitted at a hearing held in April 2025. The Board analyzed the three elements required for service connection: a current disability, an in-service event, and a nexus between the two. The Board found the first element met, as the RO had favorably acknowledged the Veteran's MDD diagnosis based on a June 2021 private examination. For the second and third elements, the Board relied on the opinion from the same June 2021 private examiner, who opined that the Veteran's MDD began during active duty service and has chronically continued to the present day, establishing a nexus to service. The Board found this opinion persuasive, leading to the granting of service connection for MDD. The decision noted that as service connection was granted directly, alternate theories of entitlement were not addressed. The Board also outlined procedures for submitting evidence not considered in this decision.

Rationale

Current disability established by RO's favorable finding based on June 2021 private exam.; In-service event established by June 2021 private examiner's opinion that MDD began during active duty.; Nexus to service established by June 2021 private examiner's opinion linking MDD to active duty and chronic continuation to present.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040629
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210907-183588
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

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

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's MDD began during her active duty service. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for MDD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107, 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.104, 3.303. 

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from December 1988 to April 1994. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). 

In the September 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on April 16, 2025. The hearing transcript is included in the file. 

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or their representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38?U.S.C. §?1110, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 

In deciding an appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material favorable to the claimant. Gabrielson v. Brown, 7?Vet. App.?36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?49, 57 (1990). Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination about the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Layno v. Brown, 6?Vet. App.?465, 469 (1994). 

When considering whether lay evidence is competent, the Board must determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a veteran's disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24?Vet. App.?428 (2011). A veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to her through her senses. See Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. 

Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson reports a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent
 basis, whether a veteran's disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24?Vet. App.?428 (2011). A veteran is competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge, not medical expertise, as it comes to her through her senses. See Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 469. 

Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson reports a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). 

In each case where service connection for any disability is being sought, due consideration shall be given to the places, types, and circumstances of each veteran's service as shown by the veteran's service record, the official history of each organization in which the veteran served, the veteran's medical records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. 38?U.S.C. §?1154(a). 

In deciding claims, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the entire record on appeal. See 38?U.S.C. §?7104(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. See 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b); 38?C.F.R. §?3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 

Entitlement to service connection for MDD is granted.

The Veteran contends they are entitled to service connection for their MDD. As the Board is granting entitlement to service connection on a direct basis, the Board need not address any alternate theories of entitlement raised by the Veteran or their representative.

As to the first element of service connection, a current disability, the RO made a favorable finding in the July 2021 rating decision that the Veteran had been diagnosed with a disability. The RO cited the June 2021 private exam that showed a diagnosis of MDD. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Accordingly, the first element of service connection is met.

As to the second element of service connection, the Board finds that the evidence of record supports a finding of qualifying event, injury, or disease that had its onset during service. The June 2021 private examiner opined that the Veteran's MDD began during her active duty service. Accordingly, the second element of service connection is met.

As to the third element of service connection, the Board finds that the evidence of record supports a finding of a nexus between the Veteran's current disability and her active duty service. While the Veteran was never afforded a VA examination in relation to their claim, the June 2021 private examiner opined that the Veteran's MDD at least as likely as not began during her active duty service and has chronically continued through to the present day. Accordingly, third element of service connection is met.

Therefore, the Veteran is entitled to service connection for MDD, and the claim is granted.

 

 

Ardie A. Bland

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. O'Meara, 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.