Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (claimed as anxiety and depression) is granted.

Citation Nr: 26001448 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 08-32 673 DATE: January 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder (claimed as anxiety and depression) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1971 to September 1973. This matter originally comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This matter was most recently before the Board in January 2025, at which time the appeal was remanded to obtain VA treatment records and a VA medical opinion. The January 2025 Board decision recites the lengthy procedural history of this claim, which is incorporated by reference herein, and includes multiple Board remands and United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC or Court) Memorandum Decisions. Following the January 2025 remand by the Board, the RO requested VA treatment records from 1973 through May 1996. Additional VA treatment records were associated with the claims file in June 2025. The Board had instructed the RO to obtain records from Dr. J.W. and from those facilities identified in the July 2024 CAVC Memorandum Decision (Beaumont and Houston). While additional VA treatment records from Beaumont and Houston have been associated with the claims file, VA psychiatric treatment notes from Dr. J.W. are not of record. Nor is there confirmation that these specific records do not exist. Thus, the Board finds there has not been substantial compliance with its remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (a remand confers upon the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand directives). A VA medical examination took place in October 2025 and was supplemented by a medical opinion addendum in November 2025. The VA medical opinions in October 2025 and November 2025 were premised on a cited absence of mental health symptoms in the service treatment records (STRs) and a belief the Veteran did not seek treatment for psychiatric problems until 2020. However, a 1973 STR reflects treatment for nervousness and an assessment of anxiety. Further, the record contains ample evidence that the Veteran sought treatment for mental health issues with prescription psychiatric medication dating back to at least the 1990s. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the VA medical opinion is inadequate and therefore not in substantial compliance with its remand directives. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (an opinion based upon an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) (when VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination, the examination must be adequate); Stegall, 11 Vet. App. at 268. Nevertheless, given the Board's decision herein, which is a full grant of the benefits sought on appeal, there is no prejudice to the Veteran in adjudicating the claim. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection on a direct basis requires (1) evidence of current nonservice-connected disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018). For VA purposes, all diagnosed mental disorders eligible for service connection must meet DSM-5 criteria as it is the most current diagnostic criteria for establishing a psychiatric diagnosis. See Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393 (2020). A lay person is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by their senses; however, usually, they are not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). After the evidence has been assembled, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the entire record. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). When there is an approximate balance of 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. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran's contentions and pertinent evidence of record have been outlined in prior Board decisions and CAVC Memorandum Decisions and are incorporated herein by reference. The Board has reviewed the evidence of record in conjunction with the applicable laws and regulations and finds that, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection is warranted for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The first element of service connection has been met with the Veteran having been assessed with major depressive disorder based on DSM-5 criteria. See August 2024 VA Mental Health Note. See also October 2025 VA DBQ (diagnosing unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress). As noted, an August 1973 STR reflects the Veteran was assessed with anxiety. The Veteran testified at a February 2022 Board hearing that he sought treatment for anxiety and depression in 1974 after discharge from service. VA treatment records for the 1970s and 1980s are not of record. However, treatment notes of record do demonstrate the Board was referred to the mental health clinic because of "nervousness" as early as May 1996 and has been treated intermittently for psychiatric symptoms (including use of prescription psychiatric medication) since this time. The Board acknowledges there is not an adequate nexus opinion of record. Significant time has been spent in an effort to develop the evidentiary record in this matter and to resolve these uncertainties over the course of multiple Board remands. However, those uncertainties have not been sufficiently addressed. Under the circumstances, it is clear that further evidentiary development would be futile; and the Board declines to cause further delay in this case. After thorough reconsideration of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is in approximate balance as to whether elements two and three of direct service connection have been met. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that a reasonable doubt has arisen regarding the etiology of the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder. When a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. §3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for an acquired psychiatric disorder. [SIGNATURE ON NEXT PAGE] JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Long, Kindra F. 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.