Citation Nr: 0004354 Decision Date: 02/18/00 Archive Date: 02/23/00 DOCKET NO. 93-28 137 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, identified as schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. Strommen, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1978 to February 1983. She also had relevant active duty for training (ACDUTRA) for the period from July 29, 1985, to August 16, 1985, in the United States Army Reserves. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision rendered in May 1991, in which the Waco, Texas, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, identified as schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type. The veteran subsequently perfected an appeal of that decision. A video conference hearing on this claim was held on October 26, 1999, before Jeff Martin, who is a member of the Board and was designated by the chairman to conduct that hearing, pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(b) (West 1991). In an October 1995 decision, the Board granted the veteran's petition to reopen her claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and remanded the case to the RO for additional development of the newly reopened service connection claim. Upon completion of this development the RO again denied the veteran's claim. Accordingly, this case is properly before the Board for appellate consideration. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All information necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim has been developed. 2. The veteran was on active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from July 29, 1985, to August 16, 1985. 3. The veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, identified as schizophrenia, chronic undifferentiated type, is shown to be related to her period of ACDUTRA in July 1985. CONCLUSION OF LAW An acquired psychiatric disorder, identified as schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, was incurred during active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(16), 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.102, 3.303 (1999). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Initially, the Board finds that the veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); that is, she has presented a claim that is plausible. She has not alleged that any records of probative value that may be obtained, and which have not already been associated with her claims folder, are available. The Board accordingly finds that all relevant evidence has been properly developed, and that the duty to assist in this case has been satisfied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Entitlement to service connection for a particular disability requires evidence of the existence of a current disability and evidence that the disability resulted from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated during active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(16), 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (1999). Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1999). The nexus between active military service and the current disability can be satisfied by medical or lay evidence of continuity of symptomatology and medical evidence of a nexus between the present disability and the symptomatology. See Voerth v. West, 13 Vet. App. 117 (1999); Savage v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 488, 495 (1997). Active military service includes active duty, any period of active duty training during which the individual was disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty, and any period of inactive duty training during which the individual was disabled or died from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101(24), 106 (West 1991). A "In the line of duty" means an injury or disease incurred or aggravated during a period of active military, naval, or air service unless such injury or disease was the result of the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990, was a result of his or her abuse of alcohol or drugs. A service department finding that injury, disease or death occurred in line of duty will be binding on the VA unless it is patently inconsistent with the requirements of laws administered by the VA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(m) (1999). An injury or disease having an onset in service will be presumed to have been incurred in the line of duty unless the preponderance of the evidence establishes that it was due to willful misconduct. Forshey v. West, 12 Vet. App. 71 (1998); 38 U.S.C.A. § 105(a) (West 1991). Willful misconduct means an act involving conscious wrongdoing or known prohibited action. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n) (1999). It involves deliberate or intentional wrongdoing with knowledge of or wanton and reckless disregard of its probable consequences. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n)(1) (1999). Mere technical violation of police regulations or ordinances will not per se constitute willful misconduct. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n)(2). Willful misconduct will not be determinative unless it is the proximate cause of the injury, disease, or death. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n)(3) (1999). The simple drinking of alcoholic beverage is not of itself willful misconduct. 38 C.F.R. § 3.301(c)(2) (1999). If, however, in the drinking of a beverage to enjoy its intoxicating effects, intoxication results proximately and immediately in disability or death, the disability or death will be considered the result of the person's willful misconduct. Id. Evidence of record shows that the veteran was on ACDUTRA from eight o'clock in the morning on July 29, 1985 for nineteen days, until August 16, 1985, to include travel time. The medical evidence of record shows that she was admitted to Windy Hill Hospital in Marietta, Georgia, at 8:27 p.m. on July 29, 1985, due to psychotic behavior, and was placed in seclusion. Her admission resulted from her superiors noticing that she was acting "bizarrely" and after treatment at the clinic at the Fort where she was stationed was unsuccessful. The treatment records indicate that amphetamines were found in her system, and these are noted as a possible cause for her behavior. However, the discharge summary states that "in view of the long-term nature, in terms of the duration of time that her psychosis persists, one must seriously consider an underlying functional disorder." Her diagnosis was an acute psychotic episode of unknown etiology. The veteran was transferred to an army hospital, presumably Dwight D. Eisenhower Hospital, on August 1, 1985. Records from Andrews Center, a private treatment facility in Tyler, Texas, from November 1985, indicate that the veteran was transferred to Andrews from Dwight D. Eisenhower Hospital in Georgia where she had been an inpatient for three months. The records note that the veteran's psychosis was of approximately six months duration at that time, and that it started in July 1985 in Georgia, where she was treated at Windy Hill Hospital. She was diagnosed at this time with schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type. Medical records show that the veteran has had virtually constant psychiatric treatment from July 1985 to the present. Additionally, in a September 1996 VA examination report the veteran is diagnosed with schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, and the examiner notes that persons who appear schizophrenic on amphetamines usually clear up after a period of time. He further states, "I wouldn't wonder if this didn't happen while she was on active duty, especially due to the chronic nature and persistence of the disease." Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the medical evidence supports a conclusion that her current psychiatric disorder had its onset on July 29, 1985, while she was on ACDUTRA with the army reserves. Although the veteran's initial hospitalization report diagnoses an acute psychotic episode, subsequent hospitalization records indicate that her proper diagnosis is schizophrenia, and that it dated back to the initial hospitalization. Moreover, while the records show that she had a positive amphetamine test at her initial hospitalization, and that this could have been a possible cause for her psychotic episode at that time, subsequent medical evidence noting the longevity of her psychosis absent any drug use contradicts this conclusion. The Board notes that RO states in its February 1998 Supplemental Statement of the Case that the veteran was exhibiting bizarre behavior upon arrival for her ACDUTRA, and thus, her psychosis did not have its onset during active service. However, the initial hospitalization records do not state that the veteran was acting bizarrely when she arrived for ACDUTRA, rather, they provide no timeframe for her bizarre behavior other than to say that her superiors noticed this behavior and referred her to the mental health clinic. Additionally, her admission to the psychiatric hospital was not until 8:27 in the evening, some 12 hours after she reported for duty. The evidence does state that the veteran got lost several times on her way to begin her ACDUTRA in Georgia. However, even if this was the beginning of her symptoms, and there is no medical evidence asserting onset other than on July 29, 1985, it constitutes active service because travel time is considered part of ACDUTRA. Furthermore, while no official line of duty report is available for the events of the veteran's July 1985 ACDUTRA period, since it began while she was on active service, the onset of her disability can be presumed to have been incurred in the line of duty unless the preponderance of the evidence establishes that it was due to willful misconduct. Forshey v. West, 12 Vet. App. 71 (1998); 38 U.S.C.A. § 105(a) (West 1991). The Board has already concluded, based on medical evidence, that her psychosis was not drug induced, and, there is no other evidence of willful misconduct on the part of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n) (1999). Thus, the Board determines that willful misconduct is not established and her psychosis had its onset in the line of duty. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n) (1999). Therefore, based on the above, the Board finds that the evidence of record satisfies the criteria necessary to establish entitlement to service connection for the veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, identified as schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, and the veteran's claim therefor is granted. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, identified as schizophrenia, chronic, undifferentiated type, is granted. JEFF MARTIN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals