304 ( f ) are not applicable in this case . This is manifestly evident to the Board based on the Veteran ' s own testimony , and is further indicated by the Veteran ' s May 2011 VA intake evaluation , at which the examiner found that the Veteran had clearly stated that her complaint was that she was not relieved from duty when she felt she should be , and this " does not constitute sexus harassment - or in fact , any form of harassment . " Finally , the Board notes that at no time has the Veteran been shown to have a diagnosis of psychosis , and thus consideration of whether the presumptions afforded for a chronic disease is not warranted at this