BVA Case 21-4580: Ptsd

3 Because the September 2019 and September 2020 VA medical opinions on which the Board relied are inadequate,and because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its findings on appellant's credibility,the Court will set aside the Board's decision and remand the matter for further proceedings.

[8] Finally,the examiner noted that a lack of objective evidence prevented her from accurately determining the presence of any psychiatric disorder without undue speculation,and that appellant's medical records clearly do not reveal a DSM-5 diagnosis or a nexus between major depression,a neurocognitive disorder,and service.

10 It found that additional commentary was necessary to adequately explain whether there was a nexus between major depression,a neurocognitive disorder,and service.

11 It requested an explanation why there was no evidence of a nexus between major depression,neurocognitive disorder,and service, and 4 R.

14 With respect to major depressive disorder,the examiner opined that appellant did not endorse depression on discharge,that his record documents negative depression screens until 2017 when he endorsed depressive symptoms related to a 2008 neck injury; thus, a nexus .

16 She also opined that a lack of continuous complaints or evidence of cognitive impairment during and after service indicated a nexus could not plausibly be established.

18 In the decision on appeal,the Board found appellant competent to report his current symptoms but not competent to diagnose his mental health conditions or relate them to service.

Appellant's Argument About Credibility As factfinder,the Board is responsible for assessing and weighing the evidence,including making credibility determinations.