ANXIETY DISORDER

Summary

The Veteran, who served from September 1993 to October 2001, appeals the denial of service connection for a generalized anxiety disorder. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 rating decision. The primary evidence considered was a December 2025 private psychological report from J.G. This report diagnosed the Veteran with generalized anxiety disorder, consistent with DSM-5 criteria. Dr. J.G. opined that the disorder was related to the Veteran's active-duty service, citing the Veteran's reported onset of symptoms during multiple deployments, which involved being far from family and experiencing a divorce. The psychologist noted the Veteran's self-reported problems with anxiety, anger, irritability, and low frustration tolerance that began during service and continued. Dr. J.G. reasoned that the Veteran's self-report was objectively confirmed through best-practice assessment methods, and the conclusion was supported by a clear chronological, functional, and thematic link between the symptoms and their onset in service. The Board found this private opinion to be favorable, supported by adequate medical rationale, and entitled to probative weight. The Board determined the evidence was in approximate balance regarding the service connection of the generalized anxiety disorder. Applying the benefit of the doubt doctrine, the Board resolved reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor. Consequently, service connection for generalized anxiety disorder is granted.

Rationale

Private psychological opinion found credible and probative.; Opinion linked disorder to service-related stressors.; Evidence in approximate balance.; Benefit of the doubt applied in Veteran's favor.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040731
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 251229-618270
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a generalized anxiety disorder is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The competent and credible evidence of record is in approximate balance as to whether a generalized anxiety disorder is related to an in-service injury or illness.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a generalized anxiety disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from September 1993 to October 2001. 

These matters are before the?Board of Veterans' Appeals?(Board) on appeal of a March 2025 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

In the December 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 March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative 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. 

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 is granted for any current disability that is the result of a disease contracted or an injury sustained while on active-duty service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

If the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance, the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt. Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021.

In a December 2025 report, J.G., a private psychologist, diagnosed the Veteran with a generalized anxiety disorder based on The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). J.G. opined that the disorder was related to the Veteran's active-duty service. In support of this conclusion, J.G. observed that the Veteran reported no mental health issues prior to service, but that during his multiple deployments, he was far removed from his family and young children, and went through a divorce. He described problems with anxiety, anger, irritability and low frustration tolerance which developed during this period and continued until the present. J.G. reasoned that the Veteran "described the onset of his current symptoms during service and emerging in response to personal and military circumstances" and that "[t]his self-report was objectively confirmed through the use of best-practice methods of assessment." J.G. remarked that "[t]his conclusion was further supported by the claimant's general narrative discussion of his symptoms which foregrounded a clear chronological, functional, and thematic link between symptoms and their onset in service."  

The Board finds that the evidence of record is in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran has a generalized anxiety disorder which is related to his active-duty service. In this regard, the only competent medical evidence of record is the December 2025 report of J.G., which is favorable to the claim. That opinion is supported by an adequate medical rationale and is entitled to probative weight. Therefore
 personal and military circumstances" and that "[t]his self-report was objectively confirmed through the use of best-practice methods of assessment." J.G. remarked that "[t]his conclusion was further supported by the claimant's general narrative discussion of his symptoms which foregrounded a clear chronological, functional, and thematic link between symptoms and their onset in service."  

The Board finds that the evidence of record is in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran has a generalized anxiety disorder which is related to his active-duty service. In this regard, the only competent medical evidence of record is the December 2025 report of J.G., which is favorable to the claim. That opinion is supported by an adequate medical rationale and is entitled to probative weight. Therefore, the evidence is at least in approximate balance, and the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor.

The claim is granted.

 

 

Laura E. Collins

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Bametzreider, Paul

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.