Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069923 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 220414-236354 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric disorder had its onset during service or is otherwise causally or etiologically due to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably from April 2011 to October 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an April 2022 VA Form 10182, the Veteran requested the hearing lane of the rating decisions under the Veterans Appeals Improvement Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA). Under the Board Hearing Docket, the Board is limited to review of the evidence in the record up to and until the date of the rating decision on appeal and any evidence submitted at the Board hearing and within 90 days following the hearing. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (b). In October 2025, the Veteran attended a hearing with the undersigned VLJ; a transcript of the hearing is of record. SERVICE CONNECTION Generally, service connection may be established if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active-duty service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To that end, service connection may be established for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to the period of service, establishes the disease was incurred during active-duty service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In order to prove service connection, there must be competent and credible evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus or link between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether persuasive weight of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-82 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a psychiatric disability. In the August 2021 rating decision on appeal, the RO favorably found that the Veteran had been diagnosed with a disability, to include major depressive disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, and persistent depressive disorder. The first element of service connection has been met. In Clemons v. Shinseki, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) noted the Board should consider alternative current disorders within the scope of the filed claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). The Board has preliminarily reviewed the case at hand and finds that the holding in Clemons is applicable here. In light of Clemons, the Board has framed the issue as entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. The Veteran has attributed his psychiatric disorder to an incident in service where a battle buddy had was loading equipment and tying equipment down using a breaker bar. He wasn't using his protective headwear, and he hit his head. See October 2025 Hearing Transcript at p. 3. The question before the Board is whether the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is etiologically related to his active duty service. The Board acknowledges the April 2020 treatment summary provided by the Veteran from a private physician. The physician noted that the Veteran had been referred to him for counseling and recounted the Veteran's account of his coworker's injury and current symptoms. The physician stated that the Veteran had been scheduled for another session but did not show. The physician did not diagnose the Veteran or offer an opinion on whether a psychiatric disability was due to service. In August 2021, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. During this examination, the Veteran recounted the incident with his fellow soldier, which the examiner found was consistent with his statement to the private provider. The Veteran did not report any other in-service stressors. The examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's psychiatric disability was incurred in or caused by an in-service event, injury, or illness. The examiner reasoned that there was no evidence corroborating the event. Thus, there is no competent and probative evidence of a nexus in this case. In this regard, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's claim that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his military service. However, determining the etiology of a psychiatric disorder is beyond the knowledge of a layperson such as the Veteran. Hence, his opinion is of no probative value. Thus, for reasons and bases outlined above, the totality of the competent and credible evidence is against the nexus element of this claim. As such, the evidence of record is neither evenly balanced nor approximately so, to indicate that service connection is warranted for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Rather, the evidence persuasively weighs against such a finding. The benefit of the doubt doctrine, see 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b), is therefore not for application to this claim. Lynch, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side, or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). Marcus N. Fulton Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Love, Kelsey 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.