08-29 966, 08-29 966

Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army June–October 1979 and was discharged partly for negative attitude/behavior.
First formal diagnosis of schizophrenia occurred in 1989; treatment records document long-standing auditory and visual hallucinations the Veteran reports began during service.
Claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability (major depressive disorder and schizophrenia) was denied by the RO and appealed to the Board; the claim was remanded several times and returned to the Board.
A February 2016 VA examiner opined the psychiatric condition was not related to service, noting silent STRs and no diagnosis until 1989.
The Board found the 2016 opinion inadequate because it failed to consider the Veteran’s consistent lay reports of in-service hallucinations and the discharge counseling report; the Board gave greater probative weight to the Veteran’s lay statements and granteda service connection.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder (schizophrenia, major depression)	Veteran: ongoing auditory/visual hallucinations began in service and continued after discharge; supports service connection	VA/Examiner: STRs silent for mental health; no diagnosis until 1989; no evidence of mental disorder at discharge	Granted — Board found preponderance of evidence supports nexus to service and credited Veteran’s lay statements over the inadequate 2016 opinion
Proper probative weight of VA medical opinion vs lay evidence	Lay statements of continuous hallucinations are competent and credible to show continuity of symptomatology	February 2016 examiner: medical opinion against service nexus based on records and timing of diagnosis	Board held the 2016 opinion was inadequate because it failed to consider lay reports and discharge behavior; gave greater weight to Veteran’s contemporaneous statements

Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (2004) (elements required for service connection and need for nexus evidence)
Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006) (Board must assess value of lay and medical evidence)
Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (framework for evaluating competence and credibility of evidence)
Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 4 (1990) (benefit of the doubt rule when evidence is in equipoise)
Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (2013) (continuity of symptomatology can establish chronicity for post-service diagnoses)
Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996) (preponderance standard for denial of benefits)