Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied.

Citation Nr: 26001463 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 20-06 020 DATE: January 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), was due to or caused by childhood trauma including severe abuse and witnessing a cousin being hit and killed by a fire truck as a child. 2. The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder, was due to or caused by events during service, to include sports injuries during service. 3. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's reports of witnessing a friend drop a rifle and being either fatally shot through the chin and head or non-fatally shot through the arm are inconsistent and not credible because the statements made in close proximity in time differ substantially regarding major details. Likewise, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's later statements reporting witnessing suicides are not credible, as it is facially implausible that the Veteran would not have mentioned those events during detailed discussions of stressful events during a VA psychiatric assessment and a VA psychiatric examination. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to January 1979 and was separated under other than honorable conditions. In December 1981, the Veteran's service was adjudicated to be honorable for VA purposes. The Veteran died in September 2022, and the Appellant seeks surviving spouse benefits. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision issued by a Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In September 2023, the Veteran appeared at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript has been associated with the claims file. In November 2023 and September 2025, the Board remanded the matter for additional development by the AOJ. Most recently, in September 2025, the Board remanded the matter to request a medical opinion addressing the Veteran's documented sports injuries during service with respect to the etiology of a psychiatric disability. In October 2025, the requested VA medical opinion was obtained. Therefore, the Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the November 2023 and September 2025 remand requests. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In November 2025, the Board sent the letter notifying the Appellant that the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the September 2023 Board hearing was no longer available to adjudicate the appeal. The letter communicated the right to request another optional hearing and instructed the Appellant to request a hearing within 30 days, or the Board would assume that the Appellant did not desire another hearing and would decide the case. The Board notes that the letter appears to have been sent in error, as the undersigned Veterans Law Judge conducted the September 2023 Board hearing. Regardless, the Appellant did not request another hearing or otherwise respond, so the Board will proceed with adjudication of the appeal. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). Service connection may be established for disability caused by disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. To establish service connection for a claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence, generally medical, of a causal relationship between the claimed in service disease or injury and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999). Service connection may also be established for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in-service. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 503 (1992). The disease entity for which service connection is sought must be chronic rather than acute and transitory in nature. For the showing of chronic disease in service, a combination of manifestations must exist sufficient to identify the disease entity and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time, as distinguished from merely isolated findings or a diagnosis including the word chronic. Secondary service connection may be established for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of the facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). Lay testimony is competent when it regards the readily observable features or symptoms of injury or illness and may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran is competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters based on firsthand knowledge, such as experiencing a physical symptom such as pain. Therefore, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of lay statements. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility. Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while weight and credibility are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted. Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67 (1997). A Veteran need only demonstrate that there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence to prevail. To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). While the Board must provide reasons and bases supporting a decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, every piece of evidence submitted by or on behalf of the Veteran. Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence of record. The Veteran should not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed. Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). October 3, 1977, service medical records note that the Veteran was brought into the emergency room after football injuries. The Veteran reported being unconscious for about 5 seconds, but without blurred vision or dizziness. The Veteran reported pain on the right side of the neck below the ear. The Veteran reported being butted on the head during football practice on the right sternomastoid and stunned for several seconds without a loss of consciousness. October 15, 1977, service medical records document that the Veteran ran into a pole while playing football and had a dazed feeling for 20 to 30 seconds without loss of consciousness or dizziness. The injury was assessed to be bruised muscles. The examiner noted an abrasion at the auditory orifice with ground in pebble, without any tenderness of the head. The injury was assessed as a contusion of the right sternomastoid. At a December 1978 separation examination, a 1977 head injury was noted resulting in recurring headaches two to three times per month. February 2017 VA medical records document a psychiatric assessment. The Veteran reported hitting a steel pole and being knocked unconscious while running. The Veteran reported having been five feet away when witnessing a good friend drop a rifle, which fired and killed the friend. The Veteran stated that "the shot went into his chin and blew through his head." The Veteran reported being 10 years old playing outside with a cousin when a fire truck lost control and ran over and killed the cousin. The Veteran reported severe abuse as a child, with parents beating children with extension cords, barber straps, brooms, or switches badly enough to prevent sitting down or showering because of the stinging. The Veteran reported having been kicked down the stairs and other similar incidents and reported standing up for siblings. The Veteran reported nightmares two to three times per week about the cousin being killed by a fire truck and the incident where the friend was killed by the dropped rifle. On an April 2017 VA Form 21-0781, Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), the Veteran reported that a helicopter was damaged and fell into the water at the demilitarized zone (DMZ), and that the Veteran's unit was placed on high alert not knowing what would happen. The Veteran reported being very afraid and unable to sleep after that event and was unsure if a war would start. In May 2017, the Veteran filed VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, claiming entitlement to service connection for PTSD. At a May 2017 VA examination, the examiner diagnosed PTSD and opioid use disorder, in early remission. The Veteran reported that both parents were physically abusive while the Veteran was a child, stating that they would probably have been in jail for abuse under modern standards. The Veteran reported being beaten with extension cords, kicked, and bruised, and reported being beaten so badly that it hurt to sit down. The Veteran reported current marital issues, attributing anger issues and defensiveness to childhood experiences. The Veteran reported struggling in school and being involved in gangs, fighting, and similar things. The Veteran reported attending a "youth camp" after being expelled from school and reported just trying to survive and fighting back against molestation attempts. The Veteran reported having been arrested 10 to 15 times for assault, battery, and domestic violence. The Veteran reported starting to smoke marijuana at age 10, starting alcohol use at the age of 14, and starting heroin at age 20. The Veteran reported running into a pole and being knocked out during service, and the examiner found that stressor was not adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD. The Veteran reported having a best friend killed in New York in 1976, and the examiner found that stressor was adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD. The Veteran reported childhood physical abuse, witnessing violence, and, at age 11, seeing a cousin hit and killed by a fire truck. The examiner found those childhood stressors were adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD. The Veteran reported having been given an honorable discharge for a medical condition relating to knee problems. The Veteran told the May 2017 VA examiner about going on alert when a United States helicopter went down in 1979, and reported a fellow soldier dropped a rifle that fired, hitting that soldier in the arm. The Veteran stated that accident did not kill that soldier. The examiner found those events did not meet DSM-5 criteria for a traumatic event. The examiner concluded that the only stressor contributing to the Veteran's PTSD was stressor number three, including childhood physical abuse, witnessing violence and seeing a cousin hit and killed by a fire truck. The Veteran reported being frequently defensive, characterizing the attitude by saying "you're not going to hurt me." The Veteran reported nightmares of beatings and death and reported a recent nightmare of the cousin being hit and killed by a runaway fire engine. The Veteran reported feeling "petrified" when hearing sirens as a result. The Veteran reported avoiding driving and needing to pull over whenever there were sirens or lights, and getting nervous. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not report any traumatic event while stationed in Korea that met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, but that the childhood stressors did meet those criteria. The examiner found that the Veteran's reported stressors from service were unrelated to the diagnosed PTSD. The May 2017 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's psychiatric disability was less likely than not incurred during service or caused by events during service, to include the Veteran's reported stressors during service. The examiner opined that the Veteran's PTSD and opioid use disorder were caused by childhood trauma and witnessing the death of a cousin as a child. In August 2017, the Veteran filed VA Form 21-0958, Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran reported that PTSD was caused by a traumatic injury while stationed in Korea and reported being harassed and that officers tried to sleep with the Veteran after the injury because the Veteran was young and had never been away from home. The Veteran reported being put out in the field to sleep, hearing all kinds of noise, and being unable to sleep, asserting that service connection was warranted. On a January 2020 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals, the Veteran reported developing PTSD through traumatic experience in the Korean DMZ. The Veteran reported having nightmares of "suicide killings," blood, and other traumatic experiences due to service-related PTSD. February 2021 private medical records note an old, depressed fracture of the left orbital floor. In March 2022, the Appellant submitted a statement reporting that the Veteran had entire body injuries while participating in sports in 1978 in Korea. The Appellant reported that the Veteran had constant complaints about pain, headaches, agitated nerves, a swollen right leg, and was stressed. The Appellant reported that the Veteran was unable to hold jobs due to physical and mental abilities, and that the Veteran's behavior as a result of injury caused many problems. The Appellant argued that the Veteran had incurred a brain injury and implied that service connection was warranted for residuals of a traumatic brain injury. At a September 2023 Board hearing, the Appellant testified that the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD and sleep apnea, and a CAT scan had found evidence of an old, depressed skull fracture. When asked if any doctor had related the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms to the head injury, the Appellant reported some conflicts between the Veteran and healthcare staff and treatment by a psychiatrist. The Appellant reported that the Veteran may have been on psychiatric medication. In a March 2024 statement, the Appellant asserted that the claim was for entitlement to a traumatic brain injury. In an April 2024 VA records research response memorandum, a researcher considered the Veteran's reports of being on edge when a helicopter went down, and found that a CH-47 helicopter was shot down after straying over North Korean Airspace, and North Korea released the one surviving crew member and bodies of three deceased crewmembers killed when the helicopter was shot down. The researcher found no mention of units being placed on high alert at that time. In a May 2024 medical opinion, a VA examiner found that the Veteran's reported stressors of sports injuries could not be substantiated. The examiner noted that the Veteran reported trauma during childhood and frequent nightmares about the death of a cousin when hit and killed by a fire truck. The examiner found it was not possible to link the medical records noting an old skull fracture to the Veteran's psychiatric illness. The examiner also noted that the Veteran reported leaving home to escape trauma and that the Veteran's chronic polysubstance use history complicated the diagnosis. The examiner found that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's psychiatric disability was related to service. In an October 2025 VA medical opinion, an examiner noted that the Veteran made conflicting reports regarding an accidental rifle firing, reporting conflictingly that the friend was shot through the chin and head and was killed, and later that the friend was shot through the arm and was not killed. The examiner noted that the Veteran's sports-related injuries during service did not meet the definitions of experienced traumatic events under DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for PTSD and concluded that the sports-related injuries during service did not contribute to the PTSD. The examiner noted that the Veteran's childhood physical abuse and witnessing the death of an 11-year-old cousin did meet the definitions of experienced traumatic events under DSM-5 PTSD diagnostic criteria. The examiner found that a review of scientific literature did not establish a link between the Veteran's opioid use disorder and the head injury during service, concluding that there was no objective evidence supporting a causal link or direct correlation between those injuries and that psychiatric disability. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's PTSD and psychiatric disability were less likely than not due to or caused by service. The Board notes that a current disability was shown during the appeal period. VA examinations and VA medical records document a diagnosis of PTSD and opioid use disorder. The Board has considered whether the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, was incurred during, due to, or caused by service. The Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is against such a finding. The weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, was more likely caused by or resulted from childhood trauma, to include severe abuse by parents and witnessing a cousin killed when hit by a fire truck. The Board must address the credibility of the Veteran's statements. The Veteran's reports of sports injuries during service, to include a head injury, are corroborated by service medical records and statements regarding those events were consistent. The Veteran's reports of severe childhood abuse and witnessing a cousin being fatally hit by a fire truck are credible as those reports were also consistent over time. However, the Board finds that the Veteran's reports of a friend dropping a rifle and being shot and killed accidentally are not credible because they are inconsistent. In February 2017, the Veteran reported having been five feet away from the friend during the event and reported in detail that the friend was fatally shot through the chin and that the shot "blew through" the head. In May 2017, during a VA psychiatric examination, the Veteran reported a nearly identical event where the friend instead was non-fatally shot through the arm. The Board notes that those two statements were made in close proximity in time, only a few months apart. The Board also notes that the difference between the two statements, an accidental fatal shot to the head through the chin as opposed to a non-fatal accidental shot through the arm, is a very significant difference regarding a major detail of the account. In the first statement, the Veteran reported being only five feet away when the incident happened. The Veteran would have known if the friend was shot through the head fatally or through the arm and survived. The Board finds reports of that event not credible because they differ dramatically on the primary details, where the friend was shot and whether the friend survived. The Board notes that the Veteran has reported having been separated from service due to medical reasons. However, A December 1981 administrative decision notes that the Veteran was discharged under other than honorable conditions for being absent without leave (AWOL). The Veteran's service was administratively found to be honorable for VA purposes, but the Veteran's statements reporting being separated for medical reasons appear incorrect. The Board cannot know the reason behind those incorrect statements or assertions, but the evidence tends to show generally that the Veteran's statements regarding service are not necessarily credible and therefore lends further support to the Boards finding regarding credibility. The Board also notes that the Veteran did not provide the name of the friend involved in the accidental rifle shot to the head or arm. However, the Veteran described that individual as a "best friend." The Board finds the Veteran's later statements reporting witnessing suicides as not credible and lacking sufficient detail to attempt to verify. The Board also notes that the Veteran did not report those events initially. The Board finds it facially implausible that the Veteran would have witnessed a suicide or multiple suicides during service and not have mentioned it earlier than January 2020 appeal materials, especially when discussing traumatic events during psychiatric examinations. The Board also notes that the Veteran did not report witnessing suicides during a February 2017 VA psychiatric assessment or during the May 2017 VA psychiatric examination conducted in conjunction with this claim. Even if the Board were to assume that the Veteran witnessed a suicide or suicides during service, the fact that the Veteran did not mention them when discussing stressful events in great detail during those two VA psychiatric examinations would tend to support that the Veteran did not consider them relevant to a psychiatric disability. The Board makes the same findings with respect to the August 2017 statements reporting harassment and officers trying to sleep with the Veteran after an injury, as well as the Veteran being made to sleep out in the field. The Board finds those reports not credible as they were not mentioned before or afterwards, no details were provided, and the Veteran did not discuss those as events contributing to psychiatric symptoms or even report any similar events to VA psychiatric medical providers or the May 2017 VA examiner. The Board acknowledges that the May 2017, May 2024, and October 2025 VA medical opinions could be interpreted as incomplete. However, the Board finds that those medical opinions are complete, especially when taken together. The Board acknowledges the May 2024 VA medical opinion is incomplete and does not rely on any portion based upon the inaccurate factual premise that the sports injuries during service were not documented, as service medical records plainly show those events. The Board is not free to substitute its own judgment for a medical expert. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 171 (1991). The Board assigns significant probative weight to the May 2017 and October 2025 VA examiners' opinions, concluding that the Veteran's PTSD was more likely than not the result of childhood trauma including abuse and witnessing the death of a cousin rather than any events during service. The Board, without exercising medical judgment, finds those opinions consistent with the evidence of record and supported by the weight of the available evidence. The Board acknowledges the Appellant's statements noting that a sports injury involving a head injury was documented during service. However, the weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric disability was caused by those events during service. The Board acknowledges private medical records including imaging reports potentially showing an old fracture of the left orbital floor. October 1977 service medical records note an impact and contusion of the right sternomastoid and below the ear rather than the left eye socket, and the Veteran reported pain on the right side of the neck. The Board finds that the weight of the evidence is against a finding that a psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, is related to service or any incident or event during service. The Board finds that the evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran and Appellant. Therefore, the claim must be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Hood, 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.