Citation Nr: 0003592 Decision Date: 02/11/00 Archive Date: 02/15/00 DOCKET NO. 95-30 310 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a nervous disorder, to include schizophrenia. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL The appellant's father ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Valerie E. French, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from August 8, 1979, to October 4, 1979, for a total active service period of 1 month and 27 days. This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 1995 rating decision of the San Juan, Puerto Rico, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), in which the RO considered a claim for service connection for a nervous disorder on its merits and it was found that the claim was not well grounded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran had active service for a total period of 1 month and 27 days. 2. Service medical records are negative for treatment, complaints, or diagnosis relative to a nervous disorder, to include schizophrenia. 3. A post-service psychological report, dated October 1979, attributed the veteran's symptomatology to "difficulties in affective adjustment," which was intensified by the change in environment, home separation, and adaptation to a structured process of the military type. In December 1979, his psychiatrist indicated that he was being treated for "emotional problems." 4. Diagnosis for a psychotic disability is not shown until October 1980, at which time his private psychiatrist indicated diagnoses of paranoid schizophrenia, borderline psychotic, and psychotic depression. The veteran is not entitled to a presumption of service-incurrence for manifestation of a psychoses to a compensable degree within one year following his discharge from active duty. 5. The record does not include a medical opinion to the effect that a nervous disorder or any other psychotic disability, to include the current manifestation of schizophrenia, was incurred during or as a result of the veteran's brief period of active military service in 1979. CONCLUSION OF LAW The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding that a nervous disorder was incurred in or aggravated by the veteran's period of active service. 38 U.S.C.A. 1131, 5107 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.309 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The threshold question that must be resolved with regard to each claim is whether the veteran has presented evidence that the claim is well grounded, that is, that each claim is plausible. If he or she has not, the appeal fails as to that claim, and the Board is under no duty to assist him or her in any further development of that claim, since such development would be futile. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), and Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990). Having reviewed the record, the Board has concluded that the claim for service connection for a nervous disorder is well grounded, or plausible, in light of the holding of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) in Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495-98 (1997). Savage provides that a veteran may establish a well-grounded claim for service connection under the chronicity provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). In such cases, the evidence (regardless of its date) must show that the veteran had a chronic condition in service or during an applicable presumption period, and that the same condition currently exists. In this case, a diagnosis of schizophrenia is shown within one year following the veteran's discharge from active duty and the record demonstrates continuity of symptomatology and treatment for chronic schizophrenia from the date of diagnosis to the present time. Evidence Service medical records show that the veteran was psychiatrically evaluated as normal on induction to service in June 1979, and there is no evidence of in-service psychiatric treatment, to include complaints or diagnosis relative to adjustment disorder, schizophrenia, or any other mental disabilities. A 1979 DD 214 shows that the veteran received a discharge under the trainee discharge program (TDP) marginal or nonproductive. In a December 1981 statement, the veteran's father indicated that while stationed in Fort Gordon, Georgia, for basic training, the veteran developed a mental condition which prevented him from completing his training. Upon his return home, the veteran's father became aware of symptoms such as a mental block and slow speech, and the veteran was taken for psychological and psychiatric treatment. An October 1979 psychological report shows findings of incoherent thinking process, flight of ideas, blunt and depressed affect, and complaints of hallucinations. The examiner found that the veteran was presenting with difficulties in personal adjustment and management of personal relations, characterized by insecurity, feelings of worthlessness, avoidance of tense situations, hesitancy in making decisions, and restriction of social contact. No organic condition was detected in his psychomotor functioning. The examiner believed that as a part of the adolescence process, the veteran showed some difficulties in affective adjustment, which were intensified because of the change of environment, separation from his home, and adaptation to a structured process of the military type. In a December 1979 statement, Elba G. Aponte de Rodriguez, M.D., indicated that she had been treating the veteran for emotional problems since October 1979. In a statement dated May 1980, the veteran indicated that he was not hospitalized at Fort Gordon or at any other place during his military service. In September 1980, Dr. Aponte de Rodriguez provided the following diagnoses for the veteran: 1. borderline psychotic; 2. schizophrenia, paranoid; and 3. psychotic depression. It was noted that the veteran had been seen for treatment shortly after military discharge, at which time he expressed sadness and indicated that he wanted to be alone. According to Dr. Aponte de Rodriguez, the veteran described symptomatology of depression, persecutory ideations, and hearing voices which began during his army training. The veteran also indicated that he did not complete his training because of mental sickness and because he could not work. Dr. Aponte de Rodriguez noted that the veteran was attending therapy regularly, was taking medication, and was in remission for secondary symptoms. In July 1982, the Board determined that a nervous disorder was not incurred or aggravated by the veteran's military service. The Board found that a nervous disorder was not shown in service and that the veteran did not qualify for consideration of service connection for schizophrenia on a presumptive basis, as he had not had more than 90 days of active service. On an April 1983 certificate of disability, Ramon Parilla Barreras, M.D., indicated that the veteran had been totally disabled for the period of January 28, 1982, to the present, and a diagnosis of emotional problems was given. A March 1987 medical statement indicates that the veteran was hospitalized at the Psychiatric Medical Center of the Caribbean due to an exacerbation of schizophrenia. In August 1995, the veteran was afforded a personal hearing before a local officer at the San Juan RO. The veteran's father testified that shortly after graduating from vocational school, his son had taken the Army tests, passed them, and enlisted in the Army. Thereafter, he noticed that on one occasion the veteran seemed disoriented when he called home during his basic training. When the veteran returned home shortly thereafter, his family noticed that he couldn't communicate properly and he was disoriented, at which time they took him for psychiatric treatment and he was diagnosed with schizophrenia. The veteran's father did not know if the veteran received any type of medical treatment while serving on active duty, and it was argued that if the veteran had a mental condition prior to the service, it would have detected at the time of the physical examination on induction. The veteran's father also speculated as to what events or traumas could have affected his son during the basic training period. In a September 1996 statement, the veteran indicated that he has not been able to work due to a nervous condition incurred and aggravated in the Army. Analysis According to 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1131 (West 1991 & Supp. 1999), service connection may be granted for a disability if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1999). Where a veteran served 90 days or more and a psychosis becomes manifest to a degree of ten percent within one year of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1101, 1112 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (1999). Having reviewed the record, the Board has concluded that the preponderance of the available evidence weighs against a finding that a nervous disorder, to include schizophrenia, was incurred in or aggravated by the veteran's brief period of active military service in 1979. Specifically, there is no evidence showing psychiatric treatment for schizophrenia or any other nervous disorder during the veteran's military service, and he has indicated that he was not hospitalized during that time. In addition, the initial psychological reports, dated in the month following the veteran's discharge, show that he was considered to have experienced difficulties in affective adjustment during adolescence, and these difficulties intensified before the change in environment, home separation, and adaptation to a structured process of the military type. Furthermore, his psychiatrist, Dr. Aponte de Rodriguez, initially characterized his mental difficulties as "emotional problems," with no specific reference to or diagnosis of a mental disability. Thus, the record indicates that the veteran's immediate post- service symptomatology was attributed to situational features and adjustment difficulties as opposed to a psychotic disorder. A confirmed diagnosis of psychosis is not shown until September 1980, at the time when Dr. Aponte de Rodriguez submitted a medical certificate to VA in conjunction with an ongoing attempt by the veteran and his family to obtain VA treatment and compensation. Although this diagnosis is shown during the statutory presumptive period, the veteran is not entitled to a presumption of service-incurrence of schizophrenia because he did not serve on active duty for a period of 90 days or more. In addition, the record indicates that the veteran has been prosecuting a claim for service connection for a nervous disorder by VA for many years; however, there is no record of an opinion from any of his medical providers to the effect that a nervous disorder or any form of psychosis was manifested during or incurred as a result of the veteran's period of active military service. The Board notes that the veteran's father has contended that the veteran was mentally healthy at the time of induction and that the post-service development of psychiatric difficulties must have been related to service. As a layman, the appellant's father is not competent to offer opinions on medical causation and, moreover, the Board may not accept unsupported lay speculation with regard to medical issues. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 482 (1992). For the reasons stated above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is unfavorable to the veteran's claim for service connection for a nervous disorder. Therefore, the Board is unable to conclude that a nervous disorder was incurred in or aggravated by the veteran's period of active service, and as such, a grant of service connection is not warranted therefor. Accordingly, the veteran's claim is denied. ORDER Service connection is denied for a nervous disorder. C. P. RUSSELL Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals