Citation Nr: 0809733 Decision Date: 03/24/08 Archive Date: 04/09/08 DOCKET NO. 04-11 800 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in White River Junction, Vermont THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. S. Kelly, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from May 1960 to September 1960. This matter corms before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2003 rating determination of the White River Junction, Vermont, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2005, the Board remanded this matter for additional development, to include a VA examination. The requested development has been accomplished and the matter is now ready for appellate review. FINDING OF FACT The veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that competent medical professionals have attributed to in-service stressors for which there is credible supporting evidence. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2007). The VCAA is not applicable where further assistance would not aid the appellant in substantiating his claim. Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet App 362 (2001); see 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(a)(2) (Secretary not required to provide assistance "if no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim"); see also VAOPGCPREC 5-2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 59989 (2004) (holding that the notice and duty to assist provisions of the VCAA do not apply to claims that could not be substantiated through such notice and assistance). In view of the Board's favorable decision in this appeal, further assistance is unnecessary to aid the veteran in substantiating his claim. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (i.e. DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 4th Ed. (DSM IV); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). If a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the veteran's service records may corroborate the veteran's account of the claimed stressor. Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources. Examples of behavior changes that may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include, but are not limited to: a request for a transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3). The veteran maintains that he was subject to abuse by his commanding officer and by fellow soldiers while in the Marine Corps during basic training. Normal psychiatric findings were reported on the veteran's May 1960 service entrance examination. The Board further observes that after eight weeks of recruit training the veteran was noted to have poor aptitude for service in the Marines and his progress was described as downhill. He was noted to let others take advantage of him and responded poorly to orders with resentment. During free periods he was noted to stay off to himself and he was found to be objectionally dirty and untidy. His interest in the Navy was described as poor and that he was sorry he joined. The veteran was described as sad and depressed, unreliable, a weakling, and a wise guy. It was noted that the veteran had no desire to stay in the Marine Corps. In a report prepared for the psychiatric observation unit, the veteran was noted to have completely broken down and cried. It was indicated that the veteran did not like to be called names and that he just could not take it anymore. He stated that he wanted out of the Marine Corps. It was noted that the veteran's performance in the platoon had been poor. It was recommended that he be administratively discharged. The veteran was subsequently discharged under honorable conditions. In an August 1992 outpatient treatment record, the veteran noted having an uneventful childhood. He stated that he was involved in considerable violence during basic training as a result of his small size. It was noted that the physical beatings the veteran was subjected to seemed to have had a heavy impact on him. The examiner noted that the validity of the veteran's statements could not be verified, but it was noted that he had been truthful and reliable. It was further noted that the impact of the veteran's experiences in the Marine Corps, if not a direct causal factor, were at least a joint cause of his current problems. In a July 2001 VA treatment record, it was noted that the veteran felt like a burden would be lifted if someone acknowledged what had happened to him during his service in the Marine Corps. In a June 2002 statement, the veteran's VA treatment provider, a registered nurse practitioner, indicated that she had been following the veteran for medication management for the past six years. She noted that the veteran suffered from PTSD which was caused by the behavior he was subjected to while in boot camp. The drill sergeant inflicted almost daily abuse and had taken a cigarette lighter and burned the peach fuzz off the veteran's face. She also noted that the veteran reported having been hit with butt of a rifle on his face on many occasions. He also reported having been knocked to the ground. The veteran was also subjected to beatings and experienced a "GI shower" where he was scrubbed with a nylon brush. He also had to fill his pockets, socks, and underwear with sand. He did not seek help or treatment from others as he felt this would bring negative repercussions. When discharged from service he experienced rage and would get angry and yell with little provocation. He started having nightmares about being in boot camp and having these experiences. His nightmares continued to this day. He also had panic attacks and felt like a wreck around people. The veteran was hypervigilant and could not let his guard down. He would avoid anything that might evoke feelings of distress. She concluded that even though the veteran was in the Marine Corps for a short time, the intensity of the abuse he suffered had caused him to struggle with symptoms of PTSD for many years, with his condition not likely to improve. She noted that it had impacted his life since discharge. In an August 2002 statement in support of claim, the veteran's cousin stated that the veteran had lived with her family from the time he was eleven years old until he was 19. He attended high school and had a normal and happy upbringing. The veteran's cousin added, however, that after the veteran returned from service he was a changed man. He would disappear, show up for a few days, and disappear again. He would have fits of rage and get angry for no reason. She reported that years later he came to her and explained his illness and what happened to him in the service. In a June 2003 statement, the veteran reported that two GI's burned the peach fuzz off his face, his neck, and the back of his ears. In October 2005, the Board remanded this matter for further development, to include a VA examination. In November 2005, the veteran was afforded the requested VA examination. The examiner indicated that the veteran's claims folder was available for review and reviewed the veteran's medical history. The veteran denied having had disciplinary infractions but did report significant adjustment problems with the military. He was unable to advance through basic training. The veteran described his experience in the Marine Corps as stressful. He noted that "once they got on you they never stopped." He felt trapped on Parris Island and that he would die everyday. The veteran noted that the Marine Corps was a place he would like to forget. He described various experiences of humiliation. He also reported having been burned on the face with cigarette lighters. He was knocked to the ground and his socks and shoes were removed, with sand being put in them. He was also scrubbed with a nylon brush after being accused of not showering. He described these events as traumatic. Following examination, the examiner indicated that the veteran's signs and symptoms were consistent with PTSD. Axis I diagnoses of PTSD and alcohol dependence in full and sustained remission were rendered. The examiner noted that the veteran's experiences in the military were traumatic for him. He experienced psychosocial functional status and quality of life changes following this trauma. The record shows that a current diagnosis of PTSD that is presumed to have been made in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125. See Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 140 (1997) (holding that a mental health professional's diagnosis of PTSD is presumed to be in accordance with DSM-IV criteria). The veteran's VA treating provider and the November 2005 VA examiner attributed the diagnosis to the in-service personal assaults reported by the veteran. There is thus medical evidence linking the current diagnosis to the in-service stressors. There is also ample evidence of behavioral changes as shown by the veteran's worsening emotional condition in service, and the statement from the veteran's cousin who lived with the veteran for many years prior to his entrance into service and observed the veteran's change in behavior subsequent to service and by the opinion of the VA examiner. In short, the elements for service connection for PTSD are established. The appeal is therefore, granted. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. ____________________________________________ Mark D. Hindin Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs