ANXIETY DISORDER

Summary

The Veteran served from June 1989 to June 1993. The Veteran sought readjudication of claims for service connection for anxiety and depression, asserting these conditions were caused by mental stress from concealing his sexual identity during service, a period prior to the repeal of "don't ask, don't tell." The Board found that new and relevant evidence, including VA treatment records from 2020 showing ongoing complaints, a March 2021 personal statement detailing the stress of concealment, a buddy statement from a fellow service member (C.N.S.) corroborating the Veteran's distress and post-service struggles, and the Veteran's own testimony at a December 2024 hearing, warranted readjudication. The Board also considered a February 2025 private nexus opinion. The Board found the private opinion adequate, noting it reviewed the Veteran's records, provided a rationale, and concluded the PTSD was most likely caused by military service. The private opinion also identified a request to move off base and an encounter with the legal system as markers of an in-service assault. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board found a nexus between service and the acquired psychiatric disorders, including PTSD. Service connection for anxiety, depression, and an acquired psychiatric disorder (PTSD) was granted.

Rationale

New and relevant evidence received; Resolving reasonable doubt in Veteran's favor; Nexus found between service and psychiatric disorder

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040704
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210622-167455
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

The claim to?readjudicate?entitlement to service connection for anxiety is granted.

The claim to?readjudicate?entitlement to service connection for depression is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. New?and?relevant?evidence has been received therefore?readjudication?of the claim for service connection for anxiety is?required.? 

2. New?and?relevant?evidence has been received therefore?readjudication?of the claim for service connection for depression is?required.? 

3. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is related to military service. 

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. New?and?relevant?evidence has been received sufficient to readjudicate the claim for service connection for anxiety.?38?U.S.C. §?5108;?38?C.F.R. §§?3.156, 20.203, 20.1103.

2. New?and?relevant?evidence has been received sufficient to readjudicate the claim for service connection for depression.?38?U.S.C. §?5108;?38?C.F.R. §§?3.156, 20.203, 20.1103. 

3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR THE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1989 to June 1993. 

In the June 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on December 13, 2024. 

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2021 decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or 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 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. 

New and Relevant Evidence

The Appeals Modernization Act does not limit a claimant's ability to file supplemental claims, if?new?and?relevant?evidence is provided or identified with each supplemental claim.?38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2500(c), 3.2501. Supplemental claims filed within one year of notification of a VA decision will protect the effective date.?38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h).? 

If?new?and?relevant?evidence is presented or secured with respect to a supplemental claim, the Board shall readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record.?38 U.S.C. § 5108(a).?"New?evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators."?38?C.F.R. §?3.2501. "Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim... [and] includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed."?Id.?(alteration added).? 

1. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for anxiety. 

2. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. 


 consideration all of the evidence of record.?38 U.S.C. § 5108(a).?"New?evidence is evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators."?38?C.F.R. §?3.2501. "Relevant evidence is information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim... [and] includes evidence that raises a theory of entitlement that was not previously addressed."?Id.?(alteration added).? 

1. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for anxiety. 

2. Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for depression. 

The issue before the Board is whether?new?and?relevant?evidence was presented to warrant?readjudication?of the claim for service connection for?anxiety and depression. 

The Veteran's original claim was denied in a rating decision issued in?May 2020?on the basis that there was no evidence of a diagnosed anxiety or depression disability. At the time, the Appellant reported having an in-service diagnosis.

VA medical treatment records dated throughout 2020 show ongoing complaints and treatment for anxiety and depression.

Following the March 2021 supplemental claim, the Veteran submitted a March 2021 personal statement detailing feelings of anxiety and depression due to his sexual identity prior to the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. The Veteran believed he had to hide his identity to avoid punishment. As a result, it was stated that he also could not talk freely to a mental health provided in-service. Thereafter, the Veteran submitted VA medical treatment records showing ongoing care and treatment for anxiety and depression.

In April 2021 C.N.S. submitted a buddy statement on the Veteran's behalf. C.N.S. detailed becoming friends with the Veteran during their time in service. C.N.S. highlighted that the Appellant felt comfortable enough with them to share his sexual identity. C.N.S. shared that the Veteran felt hurt from not being accepted by his family and struggled with concealing his true self in the military. C.N.S. highlighted that there were rumors of "plants" in base dorms to discover homosexual service members or anyone using drugs. As such, the Veteran was observed to live in a constant state of stress and worry which carried over after separation from service.

In December 2024, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the Board. He detailed the challenges he faced having to conceal his sexual identity, living in a state of constant stress and worry, and the toll it took on his mental health. The Veteran stated that this led to substance abuse, and he finally sought treatment five to ten years after separation from service.

In February 2025, the Veteran submitted a statement regarding military sexual trauma and a private nexus opinion. 

The Board finds that?new?and relevant evidence has been received.?Accordingly,?readjudication?of the claim of entitlement to service connection for anxiety and depression?is?warranted.?

Service Connection

Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  

In determining whether service connection is warranted, the Board shall consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.  

1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. 

As discussed above, the Veteran asserts that entitlement to service connection for anxiety and depression is warranted because the claimed disability is the result of service. More specifically, the Veteran asserts that concealing his sexual identity in service caused mental stress that resulted in the claimed disabilities. In a February 2025 statement, the Veteran also asserted that his disability is the result of military sexual trauma

The Board notes the issue has been broadly characterized as a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder to make clear that the issue before the Board is entitlement to service connection for any psychiatric disability, regardless of the particular diagnosis. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).

Service connection for acquired psychiatric disabilities requires, in particular, as pertains the existence of a present disability: medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a).

Service connection for PTSD requires the following three elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (
. In a February 2025 statement, the Veteran also asserted that his disability is the result of military sexual trauma

The Board notes the issue has been broadly characterized as a claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder to make clear that the issue before the Board is entitlement to service connection for any psychiatric disability, regardless of the particular diagnosis. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).

Service connection for acquired psychiatric disabilities requires, in particular, as pertains the existence of a present disability: medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a).

Service connection for PTSD requires the following three elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor(s) actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence of a causal relationship between current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor(s). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In adjudicating a claim of service connection for PTSD, the Board is required to evaluate evidence based on places, types, and circumstances of service, as shown by the veteran's military records and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 66 (1993); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The evidence necessary to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor for PTSD will vary depending on the Veteran's claimed stressors. Id.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), PTSD stressors are listed as follows: (1) a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service, (2) if the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the alleged stressor is related to combat, (3) if the stressor is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, (4) if the veteran was a prisoner-of-war under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(y) and the claimed stressor is related to that prisoner-of-war experience, or (5) if the PTSD is based on in-service personal assault.

VA has defined "personal trauma" in a broad sense. Personal trauma for the purpose of VA disability compensation claims based on PTSD refers broadly to stressor events involving harm perpetrated by a person who is not considered part of an enemy force. Examples include assault, battery, robbery, mugging, stalking, and harassment. MST is a subset of personal trauma and refers to sexual harassment, sexual assault, or rape that occurs in a military setting.

Because personal assault is an extremely personal and sensitive issue, many incidents are not officially reported, which creates a proof problem with respect to the occurrence of the claimed stressor. In such situations, it is not unusual for there to be an absence of service records documenting the events the veteran has alleged surrounding the assault. The victims of such trauma may not necessarily report the full circumstances of the trauma for many years after the trauma.

Therefore, the Federal Circuit has held that VA cannot use the absence of service record documentation or a veteran's lack of report of in-service sexual assault to military authorities as evidence to conclude that a sexual assault did not occur. AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1318 (Fed. Cir. 2013). And for PTSD claims in general, corroboration of every detail of a claimed stressor, including the veteran's personal participation, is not required; rather, a veteran only needs to offer independent evidence of a stressful event that is sufficient to imply his or her personal exposure. See Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002) (quoting Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307 (1997)).

When a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the veteran's service records may corroborate the veteran's account of the stressor incident. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5); see also Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 277 (1999). Examples of such alternative evidence include but are not limited to records from law enforcement authorities; rape crisis centers; mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).

If primary evidence, such as service treatment records (STRs) and service personnel records (SPRs), contain no explicit documentation that personal trauma occurred, and alternative sources of evidence do not provide
 stressor incident. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5); see also Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 277 (1999). Examples of such alternative evidence include but are not limited to records from law enforcement authorities; rape crisis centers; mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).

If primary evidence, such as service treatment records (STRs) and service personnel records (SPRs), contain no explicit documentation that personal trauma occurred, and alternative sources of evidence do not provide credible supporting evidence of the trauma, evidence of behavioral changes around the time of, and after, the incident(s), may constitute a "marker" of a personal trauma PTSD stressor. The term "marker" means an indicator of the effect or consequences of the personal trauma on the Veteran. A marker could be one or more behavioral events, or a pattern of changed behavior. Even if there is no reference to the personal trauma, evidence of behavior changes may circumstantially support the possibility that the claimed stressor occurred. Evidence of behavior changes or "markers" following the claimed assault, which may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include, but are not limited to a request for a transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).

For personal assault PTSD claims, an after-the-fact medical opinion can also serve as the credible supporting evidence of the stressor. That is, VA examiners can interpret the evidence of record to confirm the occurrence of in-service sexual assaults, personal trauma, and harassment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5); Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Here, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD as evidenced by the February 2025 private opinion. As such, the first element of service connection has been met.

Additionally, the February 2025 private examiner concluded that the request to move off base and an encounter with the legal system while in service were markers of the in-service assault. As such, the second element of service connection has been met. 

In regard to the nexus element, the February 2025 private examiner concluded that the Veteran's military service most likely caused his PTSD. The Board finds this medical opinion adequate and assigns it probative value, as the examiner reviewed the Veteran's medical records, provided an opinion that contained supporting rationales, and addressed the Veteran's specific conditions and symptoms. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Additionally, there are no contradictory opinions of record. 

In light of the foregoing, and after resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds a nexus between the Veteran's military service and his currently diagnosed psychiatric disorders, to include PTSD. As such, the third element of service connection is met.

Therefore, the Board resolves all doubt in the Veteran's favor and finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

 

 

D. SMART

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Cross, 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.