Citation Nr: 9907661 Decision Date: 03/22/99 Archive Date: 03/31/99 DOCKET NO. 94-17 269 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, Spouse ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD G. A. Wasik, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1971 to May 1975. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal of an October 1993 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 1993, the RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD as there was no objective evidence of record which verified the veteran's claimed in-service stressors. The issue on appeal was originally before the Board in June 1996 and September 1997. It was remanded both times in order to obtain verification of the veteran's claimed in-service stressors. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. There is competent evidence of stressor corroboration to support a diagnosis of PTSD resulting from military service. 2. The veteran has PTSD as a consequence of his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was incurred in active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1154(b), 5107(a)(b) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(d), 3.304(d)(f) (1998). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Factual Background Review of the service medical records reveals that there were no complaints of, diagnosis of or treatment for any mental disorders during active duty. On a Report of Medical History dated in October 1973, it was reported that the veteran was a crew chief on a F111D. There was no report of an injury to the veteran's back as a result of being struck with a missile fin or by a gunpowder burn. Review of the service personnel records reveals that the veteran's primary military specialty was an aircraft maintenance specialist. The veteran did not receive any awards or decorations which evidenced participation in combat. On an Airman Performance Report dated from September 1971 to June 1972, it was noted that the veteran's duty at that time consisted of being an aircraft mechanic. He assisted crew chiefs in maintaining mission ready aircraft. The veteran was taking additional training to complete "FTD School on the F4C aircraft." An Airman Performance Report for the period from June 1972 to October 1973 noted that the veteran's duty during that period was assistant crew chief for F111D. An assignment/personnel action form dated in April 1973 included the notation that the veteran was assigned to 175 days of temporary duty at "CCK." On a performance report which was for the period from October 1973 to May 1974 it was noted that the veteran's duty consisted of being an assistant crew chief on a F111. The veteran completed a PTSD questionnaire in September 1991. He reported that he was assigned to the 18th Tactical Fighter Wing. His major duties consisted of aircraft maintenance and being a crew chief for F-4 Phantom jet fighters. He participated in a top secret assignment wherein he was a crew chief assigned to a "scramble pad" located in Tainian, Taiwan from December 1972 to June 1973. He reported that he was subjected to "hostile fire" while stationed at the scramble pad. On a statement received at the RO in October 1991, the veteran reported that he was assigned to a scramble pad as a crew chief and received hostile fire. He was stationed in Taiwan from February 1972 to June 1973. He had to scramble his jet using a "cart start." A VA social services examination was conducted in March 1992. The veteran informed the interviewer that he participated in top secret missions located near Chung Kang Kung (CCK), Taiwan. He was instrumental in setting up alert pads and also spent time getting F4's ready for flight. He often had to check his airplanes for small arms damage and during that time he was scared as he was unarmed. He reported one incident wherein he was struck in the back by a missile fin from a moving aircraft. He also indicated that another time he lost his headphones near a running jet and was terrified that he would be sucked into the jet's engine. He was subjected to stress when there was a false alarm and he thought there was going to be a nuclear war. The veteran characterized his 16 month tour as being "on edge all the time because there were so many dangerous aspects to dealing with the fighter planes." The interviewer noted that the veteran had an isolated lifestyle which had been functional until he became "disturbed with PTSD symptoms and behaviors." It was noted that the veteran was severely socially impeded. A VA PTSD examination was conducted in March 1992. The veteran reported that he was assigned to Kadena Air Base, Okinawa where he was a crew chief on an F4 fighter. Within 30 days of his assignment to Kadena, he was forced to evacuate the base due to a typhoon. He was strapped into a parachute and given a 12 minute lesson in using the device. Then he was loaded on a C130 aircraft for a flight to Korea. He experienced turbulence during the flight but landed safely. Later he was selected to participate in a top security mission to Chang Kong Keng in Taiwan. From Chang Kong Keng he was moved to Tai Nin on the southern tip of Taiwan. The veteran indicated that he had volunteered for the top secret mission. He was stationed at an alert airstrip located in the jungle. Due to the high security of the mission, he was constantly under scrutiny by armed guards including Chinese guards. When his aircraft was scrambled, the veteran would use gunpowder charges to start the engines which was very dangerous. During one alert, two planes started moving at the same time which almost cost the veteran his life. One day Communists broke into the airbase and attempted to take a C5 airplane. The veteran was sent out unarmed with another man to check for damage to the aircraft. He thought he would be killed. While stationed at the alert base two planes were lost. One crash involved a pilot who was a good friend of the veteran and another was a "661" which was rescued. The veteran also observed a SR71 secret reconnaissance aircraft which crashed and almost struck him. He described an incident during a scramble when he thought a nuclear war was beginning. It turned out to be a false alarm. The veteran also had memories of a Buddhist priest holding a screaming baby girl who the veteran thought was going to be sacrificed. He also had memories of North Koreans eating infected dog meat and kids with no clothes in the snow. The diagnosis from the examination was PTSD. The examiner noted that the veteran did not appear to aggrandize his symptoms or embellish his history. A statement of stressors was received at the RO in April 1993. The veteran reported that he was almost run over by a SR71 when it crashed in Kadena, Okinawa in 1972. In May 1972, he was involved in a secret mission which was described as a typhoon evacuation to Kunson, Korea. From July to October 1972, he was on secret mission stand by to Vietnam for the 3rd Tactical Fighter Squadron. The veteran reported that on October 3, 1972 a F4C fighter crashed at sea killing Captain J. S and Captain J. K. In November 1972, the veteran participated in a secret mission to Chung Chang Kang, Taiwan where he performed duties as a crew chief at Tianin, Taiwan for scramble alert. The veteran reported that in December 1972, a compound was attacked by "Chinese Zappers" who were all killed. The veteran reported that the Pentagon sent a camera team to film a fake scramble because of the danger involved in using black powder charges to start the engines. He also reported that one time he found a baby girl in a "Buddha temple." The veteran left the girl there but later found out that the Chinese kill a lot of female babies. The veteran also submitted a hand drawn picture of what the alert pad at Tainan, Taiwan looked like. A VA PTSD examination was conducted in May 1993. The veteran was trained to be a jet fighter technician. It was noted that his most stressful experiences revolved around duty at a combat alert base in an isolated area. The main mission of the base was to act as a first strike against the Chinese mainland in the event of war. He reported that he received scars on his back from gunpowder wounds. It was noted that gunpowder was used to start the fighters during a scramble. He was subjected to sniper fire while stationed at the alert base. He was under very close guard while stationed at the base and was very restricted in his movements. He would be shot if he went where he was not authorized to be. The examiner reviewed the March 1992 PTSD examination report. The examiner noted that "it does appear certain that these experiences were quite traumatic to [the veteran], in particular he felt too young to be in such a position and overwhelmed to be in a position of feeling in charge of these planes. He felt as if they were his planes, his pilots and still has quite a bit of survivor guilt over one particular plane that went down." The examiner reported that he "could only give [the veteran] the benefit of the doubt that these experiences were overwhelming experiences to him." The pertinent diagnosis was moderate to severe PTSD. In June 1993, the veteran submitted a copy of a newspaper article. The undated article reported that a F4C Phantom fighter aircraft of the 18 Tactical Fighter Wing at Chian, Chuan Kang airbase crashed into the straight of Taiwan. The two crew members were rescued. The veteran also submitted a copy of a photograph of an airplane and an individual. A letter was received from the U. S. Army and Joint Services Environmental Support Group (ESG) dated in August 1993. Included with the letter were two Reports of Casualty which verified that Captain J. C. K. and Captain J. G. S. were killed in a military aircraft accident on October 3, 1972. The ESG also reported that they were unable to verify that the veteran was crew chief on this aircraft. In March 1994 the veteran submitted copies of two photographs of aircraft. The veteran reported that he took the photos while serving as a crew chief on F4C fighter aircraft. He also indicated that he was assigned to the Blue Section of the 44th Squadron of the 18th Tactical Fighter Squadron. In April 1994 the veteran submitted copies of newspaper articles which he reported came from Stars and Stripes. One article was written regarding the transfer of two unidentified squadrons of F4 fighters from Kadena airbase, Okinawa to Ching Chuan Kang airbase in central Taiwan. The second article noted that members of the Chinese Armed Forces War College inspected F4 fighters based at Ching Chuan Kang airbase. The aircraft were from the 18th Tactical Fighter Wing. A RO hearing was conducted in April 1994. The veteran testified that he was trained as an aircraft maintenance jet specialist that was referred to as crew chief in slang. He was involved in a covert operation directed by the Pentagon in Taiwan beginning in approximately November 1972. He was assigned to this duty for 179 days. He was a crew chief at that time. The F4C fighters he maintained provided air defense against Red China. Security was very tight at the airbase. He testified as to his duties during a launch of the aircraft and the procedures that were used. The aircraft were started using gunpowder charges which was very dangerous. The veteran was struck in the back by a missile fin during one particularly hazardous launch. He feared that he would be run over by the aircraft. He reported that he was present with the "launch crew chief" during the launch of an aircraft which subsequently crashed, killing both crewmen. He also testified that he was assistant crew chief for the plane that crashed. The veteran testified that one time while stationed in Tainan, some Chinese Communists attempted to hijack a C5 airplane. A firefight ensued and all the perpetrators were killed. Some weapons were discharged in the veteran's direction but none of the rounds struck near him. The veteran was sent outside unarmed after the incident to check on damage to planes. This was very distressful to the veteran. He also reported that he was nearly struck by a SR71 aircraft that crash landed near him in February or March 1972. The final stressful incident the veteran described was when he examined an F111 that had crashed. He reported witnessing blood from one end of the cockpit to the other. In February 1995, a copy of an Emergency Action Data Card was submitted by the veteran. The information contained in the document indicated that the veteran was assigned to the "18th OMS blue" as a "mech. C.C." The veteran's specific emergency duty was "alert." The "date briefed" on the document was in March 1972. On a statement received in August 1995, the veteran reported that he knew a fellow serviceman who could confirm some of his claimed stressors. A statement from the veteran was received in June 1996. He reported that dates on the copy of the Airman's Performance Report were erroneous. He further indicated that on the Form 1173 Work Assignment, Mechanic, C. C. stood for crew chief. He also submitted copies of Taiwanese and Korean money as proof of his postings. An annotated copy of a service medical record dated in January 1972 was also submitted which the veteran reported demonstrated that he was at Sheppard Air Force base in January 1972. He further indicated that an entry dated in June 1972 was for a secret security clearance examination. A separate service personnel record submitted by the veteran revealed that in May 1973, the veteran was assigned to the 27th Operational Maintenance Squadron. Records from the Department of the Air Force were associated with the claims file in December 1996. The transmittal letter for the documents indicated that a chronology and information regarding the 18th Organizational Maintenance Squadron for the period from March 1972 to December 1972 were provided. It was reported that there were no major activities or changes that greatly affected, in pertinent part, security during the period from July 1972 to September 1972. The documents evidence that the squadron set up operations at CCK, Taiwan on November 5, 1972. On November 7, 1972, the squadron was directed to disperse four 4FC aircraft to Tainan Airbase, Taiwan. Detachment B of the 18th Tactical Fighter Wing was activated at that time. It was noted that the units mission in Taiwan was Air Defense Alert. It was reported that there were no major activities or changes that greatly affected, in pertinent part, security during the period from October 1972 to December 1972. 14 soldiers were assigned to temporary duty at Tainan Airbase at that time. The documents also evidence the fact that on October 3, 1972 an F4C crashed into water off Ie Shima at night killing Captain J. G. S. And Captain J. C. K. On a statement received in June 1997, the veteran reported that he was assigned to the 18th Tactical Fighter Wing from March 1972 to June 1973. He also reported that he was the crew chief on an F4C with a tail number of 67-661 which crashed into the South China Sea. In August 1997, the veteran submitted three pictures of jet fighters including one with the squadron insignia for the "Vampires." In August 1997 a statement from the veteran's mother was received at the RO. She reported that her son was assigned to duty in Korea, Okinawa and Taiwan. The son wrote to the mother indicating that he was in fear for his life. The mother opined that the veteran had changed upon his return from duty with the Air Force. On a statement received from the veteran in October 1997, it was reported that he had inspected the remains of an F111D which had crashed in February or March of 1975. The crash occurred near Clovis, New Mexico at Cannon Air Force Base. In December 1997 additional records were received from the Department of the Air Force in response to a request for information on the 18th Organizational Maintenance Squadron for the period from January 1973 to July 1973. The Air Force submitted the Lineage and Honors for the 18th Aircraft Generation Squadron, the 18th Organizational Squadron and the 18th wing. There are some references to the unit's assignment to Ching Chuan Kang, Air Force Base in Taiwan. The veteran submitted a statement in support of his claim in October 1998. He reported that the F111D which crashed in February or March 1975 was assigned to the 27th Tactical Fighter Wing at Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico. Criteria Generally, for service connection to be granted, it is required that the evidence establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in chronic disability was incurred in service, or, if pre-existing service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. When a disability is not initially manifested during service or within an applicable presumptive period, "direct" service connection may nevertheless be established by evidence demonstrating the disability was in fact incurred or aggravated during the veteran's service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1113(b) (West 1991 & Supp. 1998); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Adjudication of a well-grounded claim of service connection for PTSD requires the evaluation of the evidence in light of the places, types, and circumstances of service, as evidenced by service records, the official history of each organization in which the veteran served, the veteran's military records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(a). In addition section (f) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304, pertaining to the adjudication of PTSD claims, provides that: Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of the condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed in service stressor. If the claimed stressor is related to combat, service department evidence that the veteran engaged in combat or that the veteran was awarded the Purple Heart, Combat Infantryman Badge, or similar combat citation will be accepted, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as conclusive evidence of the claimed in-service stressor. The award of service connection for PTSD, therefore, requires the presence of three elements: (1) a current, clear medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and, (3) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and the specified claimed in-service stressor. The claims file contains diagnoses of PTSD as evidenced by the March 1992 and May 1993 VA PTSD examinations, offered by VA medical professionals. The stressors reported on the March 1992 outpatient treatment record and the May 1993 VA PTSD examinations were all related to experiences the veteran had during service. The Board finds the doctors who conducted these examinations arrived at the diagnoses based on stressors the veteran related from his tour of duty in the Air Force. Thus, the Board finds the record establishes the first and third elements set out above. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Therefore, the claim for service connection for PTSD in this appeal must be decided based upon the question of whether the in-service stressor(s) reported by the veteran and relied upon by the competent medical professionals diagnosing PTSD occurred, as substantiated by competent corroborating evidence. That question involves both consideration of the facts as presented and the credibility of the evidence contained in the instant record. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (known as the United States Court of Veterans Appeals prior to March 1, 1999) (hereinafter, "the Court"), has held that, "[i]t is the duty of the BVA as the fact finder to determine credibility of the testimony and other lay evidence." Culver v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 292, 297 (1992). The Court in Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91 (1993), set forth the foundation for the framework now established by the case law for establishing the presence of a recognizable stressor, which is the essential prerequisite to support the diagnosis of PTSD. The Court noted that the evidence necessary to establish the existence of the recognizable stressor during service will vary depending on whether or not the veteran was "engaged in combat with the enemy" under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) (West 1991) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (1996), as determined through recognized military citations or other service department evidence. In other words, a veteran's bare assertions that he "engaged in combat with the enemy" are not sufficient, by themselves, to establish this fact. If the determination of combat status is affirmative, then (and only then), a second step requires that the veteran's lay testimony regarding claimed stressors must be accepted as conclusive as to their actual occurrence and no further development or corroborative evidence will be required, provided that the veteran's testimony is found to be "satisfactory," e.g., credible, and "consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service." Zarycki at 98 (emphasis added). The Court, in Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389 (1996), citing the MANUAL M21-1 Part VA, 7.46.c (Oct. 11, 1995) held that "credible supporting evidence" of a non-combat stressor "may be obtained from" service records or "other sources." The Court further held that while the MANUAL M21-1 provisions did not expressly state whether the veteran's testimony standing alone could constitute credible evidence of the actual occurrence of a non-combat stressor, the Court's holding in Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996), established, as a matter of law, that "if the claimed stressor is not combat-related, [the] appellant's lay testimony regarding the in-service stressors is insufficient to establish the occurrence of the stressor." Further, the Court held in Moreau, the fact that a medical opinion was provided relating PTSD to events the veteran described in service could not constitute "credible supporting evidence" of the existence of the claimed non- combat stressor. Id. In Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997), the Court noted that VA had adopted a final rule in October 1996, effective November 7, 1996, revising 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.125 and 4.126 (1996). The effect of these revisions was to change the diagnostic criteria for mental disorders from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM), third edition and the third edition, revised, to the fourth edition (DSM-IV). The Court found that DSM-IV altered the criteria for assessing the adequacy of the stressor from an objective to a subjective basis. The Court further found that where there was "undisputed, unequivocal" diagnoses of PTSD of record, and the Board did not make a finding that the reports were incomplete, the adequacy of the stressor had to be presumed as a matter of law. (The concurring opinion goes further and states that the case also holds that where there is an "unequivocal" diagnosis of PTSD, the adequacy of the symptoms to support the diagnosis, as well as the sufficiency of the stressor, are presumed. Id. at 153). In West v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70 (1994), the Court held that the sufficiency of the stressor is a medical determination, and therefore adjudicators may not render a determination on this point in the absence of independent medical evidence. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the appellant prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When, after consideration of all of the evidence and material of record in an appropriate case before VA, there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3 (1998). Analysis The Board must initially address the question of whether the claimant has presented evidence of a well grounded claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990). The evidence, in brief, shows that the appellant served in the United States Air Force, that he reported he was exposed to stressors during such service, and that PTSD has been diagnosed by VA medical professionals based on the reported stressors. In view of these findings, the Board has concluded that the veteran's claim is not implausible; therefore, the Board must determine if VA has a further obligation to assist him, more than it already has, in the development of the claim. The veteran has not identified any additional, relevant evidence that has not been requested or obtained. The Board thus finds that all relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal has been obtained to the extent possible, and no further assistance is required to comply with the duty to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. The Board finds that, upon review of the relevant criteria and case law, it is clear that the question of the existence and character of an event claimed as a recognizable stressor is a matter solely within the providence of adjudicatory personnel. That is the issue addressed herein. In the instant case, the Board concludes that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy and is thus not entitled to the presumptions under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). He performed duties as an aircraft maintenance specialist while in the service. He was not awarded any combat decorations. He did report that he was fired on one time but there is no verification of this occurrence in the evidence of record. The stressors which the veteran reported show he was a crew chief on F-4 Phantom fighters assigned to a top secret mission at a scramble pad located in Tainan, Taiwan. He was subjected to what was variously described as hostile fire, sniper fire or sapper attacks while on the secret mission. He testified that there was an attempted hijacking of a C5 cargo plane which resulted in a firefight at the scramble pad. Duties at the scramble pad were hazardous as he was required to use gunpowder charges to start his jets. At times he was in danger of being sucked into running jet engines or being struck or run over by moving jets. The veteran thought at one time that a nuclear war was starting due to a mistaken alert for all the planes on the scramble pad. His back was injured by either a strike from a missile fin or from gunpowder burns while stationed at the scramble pad. He was forced to evacuate from an air base in Okinawa to Korea due to an impending typhoon. He indicated that he was fearful during the airplane ride to Korea. He was almost injured when a SR71 reconnaissance plane crash landed at Kadena Airbase on Okinawa. He reported that he was either the crew chief, assistant crew chief or involved in the launch of an F4C which crashed killing both crewmen. He was friends with the pilot of that aircraft. He was a crew chief on another aircraft with a tail number of 67-661 which also crashed. He indicated that he observed an abandoned baby girl who was left in a Buddhist temple. He was also a crew chief on F111D aircraft. He reported observing the aftermath of an F111D wreck wherein he saw blood all over the cockpit. The F111D was part of the 27th Tactical Fighter Wing. Review of the service personnel records evidenced the fact the veteran was trained as an aircraft mechanic and was also a crew chief at times. These records also revealed that the veteran was assigned to CCK for 175 days on temporary duty. The service personnel records further evidence the fact that the veteran's duties consisted in part of assisting crew chiefs in maintaining mission ready aircraft by performing preflight, post-flight, hourly scheduled and unscheduled aircraft inspections. The RO was able to confirm through ESG that a F4C Phantom crashed in October 1972, killing the pilot and weapons systems operator. ESG was unable to verify that the veteran was the crew chief on that aircraft or any other particular aircraft or that he was friends of the pilot. The RO was further able to verify through records obtained from the Air Force that the veteran's unit set up operations at CCK, Taiwan and also at Tainan, Taiwan in November 1972. There is verification of the fact that the veteran was assigned to CCK, Taiwan for 179 days. However, there is no evidence demonstrating that he was personally assigned to Tainan Airbase. There is no evidence of record confirming the veteran's allegations of using gunpowder to start his jets, that he was almost sucked into a jet airplane or that he was almost struck by moving aircraft. The veteran provided conflicting accounts as to how his back injury occurred. It was either by being struck by a missile on a moving plane or from gunpowder burns from starting the plane. There is no evidence of record of a back injury included in the service medical records, although the Board notes there are annotations in the records demonstrating that some of his medical records had been lost. There is no verifying evidence demonstrating that the veteran observed a female baby who had been left in a Buddhist temple, naked Korean children in the snow or Koreans eating dogs. Nor is there verifying evidence showing that he was almost struck by a SR71. There is no evidence of record verifying that the veteran observed the aftermath of an F111D which had crashed. in New Mexico. There is competent evidence of record, however, demonstrating that the veteran was a mechanic in charge of maintaining aircraft as evidenced by the service personnel records. In conjunction with this is the fact that the examiner who conducted the May 1993 VA examination noted that "it does appear certain that these experiences were quite traumatic to [the veteran], in particular he felt too young to be in such a position and overwhelmed to be in a position of feeling in charge of these planes. The veteran felt as if they were his planes, his pilots and still has quite a bit of survivor guilt over one particular plane that went down." The examiner reported that he "could only give [the veteran] the benefit of the doubt that these experiences were overwhelming experiences to him." The examiner diagnosed PTSD. Such evidence permits a grant of service connection for PTSD. A competent medical professional diagnosed PTSD, based at least in part on the veteran's duties of maintaining aircraft which duties have been confirmed by evidence included in his service personnel records. There is competent medical evidence of record establishing clear diagnoses of PTSD, credible supporting evidence that a claimed stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressors. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the record supports a grant of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(d), 3.304(d)(f). ORDER Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. RONALD R. BOSCH Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals - 17 -