MAJOR DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

JOHN Z. JONES · 2026 · Case ID: A26040856

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from July 2002 to September 2003, appeals the denial of service connection for major depressive disorder and binge eating disorder, the latter claimed as secondary to PTSD. The Board found the Veteran's claim for major depressive disorder to be in relative equipoise. While VA examiners consistently opined that the disorder was less likely than not related to service, their opinions failed to address the Veteran's credible accounts of in-service sexual and physical harassment. The Board afforded these opinions little weight and found the Veteran's own testimony and VA treatment notes, which linked his major depressive disorder to military sexual trauma and harassment, to be credible and probative. Consequently, service connection for major depressive disorder was granted due to the benefit of the doubt being resolved in the Veteran's favor. For the binge eating disorder claim, the Board found no diagnosis in the Veteran's treatment records or VA examinations. As the Veteran is not competent to self-diagnose, his assertions were not probative, and service connection was denied for lack of a diagnosed disability.

Rationale

Evidence in relative equipoise; Veteran's testimony regarding harassment found credible; VA examiner opinions failed to address connection to stressors

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210831-182241

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040856
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210831-182241
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for major depressive disorder is granted.

Service connection for a binge eating disorder, to include as secondary to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is in relative equipoise regarding whether the Veteran's major depressive disorder is the result of in-service harassment.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a diagnosis of a binge eating disorder at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria for service connection for a binge eating disorder, to include as secondary to post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 2002 to September 2003.

In August 2020, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and a binge eating disorder most recently addressed in a July 2020 rating decision. In September 2020, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which found that new and relevant evidence had been received and denied the claim based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision.

In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. Notably, the Veteran did not appeal the claim for service connection for PTSD, this claim was appealed on a separate Notice of Disagreement and will be discussed in another decision. On February 14, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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(s), 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 a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran must show: (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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Major Depressive Disorder

The Veteran contends that he has major depressive disorder related to his military service. For the following reasons, the Board disagrees and finds that service connection is not warranted.

The AOJ, in the September 2020 rating decision on appeal, found the Veteran presently has a diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The Board is bound by this favorable finding. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Therefore, the first element of a service connection
of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Major Depressive Disorder

The Veteran contends that he has major depressive disorder related to his military service. For the following reasons, the Board disagrees and finds that service connection is not warranted.

The Veteran contends that his major depressive disorder is related to two incidents that occurred during his service. The first incident involves other soldiers who suspected the Veteran to be homosexual despite the fact he had not disclosed this to anyone. The Veteran described how these other soldiers harassed the Veteran and forced him to perform sexual acts against his will. The Veteran further reported that he developed feelings of depression, anxiety and worthlessness.

The Veteran also reported an incident where he was taking a PT test where some soldiers deliberately tripped the Veteran injuring his right knee. The Veteran reported during this examination that he went to sick call as a result of this harassment. This is confirmed in the Veteran's service treatment records which show treatment for a right knee injury. See June 2003 Service Treatment Record. The Veteran is competent to report this information, and he has been consistent to VA and his treatment providers regarding these stressors. The Board finds the Veteran's statements regarding the second claimed event to be credible and affords them great probative weight. Accordingly, the Board finds the evidence to satisfy the second element of service connection.

Turning to the third element, medical nexus, the evidence consists of multiple VA examinations and opinions. The Veteran underwent his first VA examination in October 2019. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with major depressive disorder. The examiner ultimately concluded that the Veteran's major depressive disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. Specifically, the examiner stated that the Veteran's military service and treatment records do not support diagnosis, assessment or treatment in-service for major depressive disorder. However, this opinion fails to address the Veteran's credible accounts of sexual and physical harassment that occurred during service and any connection they may have to the development of major depressive disorder. This discrepancy between the examiner's findings and the Veteran's description of symptoms causes the Board to doubt the accuracy of the examination and any opinions that rely on this examination report. As such, the Board affords little probative weight to the October 2019 opinion.

The Veteran underwent another VA examination in February 2020. This examination again confirmed the diagnosis of major depressive disorder. The Veteran again reported the same stressors regarding sexual and physical harassment that occurred during service. The examiner then opined that the Veteran's major depressive disorder was not the result of his military service. The examiner echoed the October 2019 opinion in stating that there was no in-service treatment for major depressive disorder. The examiner ultimately concluded that the Veteran's major depressive disorder was less likely than not due to or the result of the Veteran's claimed PTSD. However, this opinion fails to answer the question of whether the Veteran's major depressive disorder was the result of his credible harassment that occurred during service. Therefore, the Board affords this opinion less probative weight.

The Veteran underwent a third VA examination in July 2020. This examination again diagnosed the Veteran with major depressive disorder, citing the same sexual and physical harassment stressors as the previous two VA examinations. When rendering an opinion regarding the etiology of this disability, the July 2020 examiner relied on the lack of a diagnosis of PTSD, however, again failed to address whether these two stressor events from service have any connection to the development of major depressive disorder. As the July 2020 opinion fails to address whether the Veteran's in-service stressors played any role in the development of major depressive disorder, the Board affords the opinion little probative weight.

VA treatment records have been associated with the Veteran's claims file. They include an extensive history of mental health treatment. The Board notes that these treatment records contain multiple notations showing major depressive disorder due to military sexual trauma. For example, a May 2018 VA treatment note states the Veteran reported sexual harassment and unwanted, coerced sexual contact during service. See May 2018 VA Treatment Note. This evidence shows a connection between the Veteran's credible claims of harassment in-service and the development of major depressive disorder.

Based on the above evidence, the Board finds the evidence in relative equipoise regarding whether the Veteran's major depressive disorder is related to the Veteran's service. VA examiners have consistently found the Veteran's current diagnosis to not be related to his military service; however, this was based on not finding a diagnosis of PTSD. These opinions failed to address any connection between major depressive disorder and the Veteran's in-service harassment. Conversely, the Veteran's medical records and the examinations themselves consistently show diagnosis of major depressive disorder and note the Veteran's continuously claimed stressor events. As the evidence is in relative equipoise regarding the question of if there is a link between the Veteran's major depressive disorder and service, service connection is warranted.

Binge Eating Disorder

The Veteran contends that he has a binge eating disorder that is the result of his claimed PTSD.

Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires sufficient evidence to show that (1) a current disability exists and (2) the current disability was either (a) caused by or (2) aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995) (en banc); see also Spicer v. McDonough, 61 F.4th 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (invalidating the requirement of "proximate cause" and instead holding "but for" causation or aggravation is enough to show entitlement to secondary service connection).

The existence of a diagnosed disability is a threshold issue in the award of service connection. VA treatment records have been reviewed, and they contain no diagnosis relating to a binge eating disorder. Further, the Veteran underwent VA examinations in October 2019, February 2020 and July 2020; each failed to find a diagnosis of a binge eating disorder.

The Veteran is competent to report symptoms of a binge eating disorder, but he is not considered competent to diagnose himself as he has not been shown to possess the medical knowledge and expertise necessary to render a medical diagnosis or opinion. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, (2011); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). As such, his assertions are not probative evidence that he has a diagnosis of a binge eating disorder.

The Board finds the evidence to be persuasively against awarding service connection for a binge eating disorder. The Veteran lacks a diagnosis that is eligible for service connection. Without evidence of a current diagnosed disability service connection cannot be awarded.

JOHN Z. JONES

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Jorge Barroso, 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer