Citation Nr: 0812665 Decision Date: 04/16/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 05-39 598 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Veteran ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Christopher McEntee, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from May 1965 to February 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision dated in October 2004 of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Portland, Oregon. In June 2007, the Board remanded this matter for further development. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence indicates that the veteran does not have PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f) (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran claims entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In the interest of clarity, the Board will initially discuss whether this claim has been properly developed for appellate purposes. The Board will then address the merits of the claim, providing relevant VA law and regulations, the relevant facts, and an analysis of its decision. I. Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 The Board must determine whether the veteran has been apprised of the law and regulations applicable to this matter, the evidence that would be necessary to substantiate the claim, and whether the claim has been fully developed in accordance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and other applicable law. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002). VA is required to provide notice of the VCAA to a claimant as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1). More specifically, VA is required to notify a claimant of the evidence and information necessary to substantiate a claim and whether the claimant or the VA is expected to provide the evidence, and is required to request from the claimant any other evidence in his or her possession that pertains to the claim. Id. VA satisfied VCAA notification requirements here in letters from VA dated in May 2004, February 2007, and June 2007. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. VA informed the veteran of the elements of his claim and of the evidence needed to substantiate his claim. See Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). VA requested from the veteran relevant evidence, or information regarding evidence which VA should obtain (the Board also finds that the veteran was otherwise fully notified of the need to give to VA any evidence pertaining to his claim). Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004) (veteran should be notified that he should submit any pertinent evidence in his possession). VA advised the veteran of the respective duties of the VA and of the veteran in obtaining evidence needed to substantiate his claim. And VA provided notification to the veteran prior to the initial adjudication of his claim in October 2004. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 444 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (VCAA notice must be provided to a claimant before the initial unfavorable RO decision). The Board notes a deficiency with VCAA notification, however. VA did not notify the veteran regarding disability evaluations and effective dates for the award of VA benefits until February 2007. Nevertheless, the Board finds that any presumed prejudice incurred by the veteran as a result of the late notice here has been rebutted by the record, and that proceeding with a final decision is appropriate. See Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (2007). See also Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005), rev'd on other grounds, 444 F.3d 1328. As will be further detailed below, the Board will deny the veteran's service connection claim. No increased rating or effective date will be assigned therefore. Moreover, the Board, after full and proper notice, readjudicated the veteran's claim in an October 2007 Supplemental Statement of the Case. See Mayfield, supra. As such, the late notice is harmless error in this matter. The Board finds that VA satisfied VCAA notification requirements here. With regard to VA's duty to assist, the VCAA requires that VA make reasonable efforts to assist the veteran in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for benefits sought, unless no reasonable possibility exists that such assistance would aid in substantiating the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A. The VCAA provides that the assistance provided by the Secretary shall include providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such an examination or opinion is necessary, as further defined by statute, to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A. In this matter, the Board finds that VA's duty to assist has been satisfied as well. The RO obtained medical records relevant to the appeal. The RO obtained service personnel records relevant in this matter. VA afforded the veteran the opportunity to appear before one or more hearings to voice his contentions. And VA provided the veteran with medical examinations for his claim. In sum, the facts relevant to this appeal have been properly developed and there is no further action to be undertaken to comply with VA's duties to notify or assist the veteran in this appeal. Therefore, the veteran has not been prejudiced as a result of the Board deciding his claim here. II. The Merits of the Claim for Service Connection The veteran claims that he incurred PTSD during service. In various statements in the record, he maintains that he incurred PTSD as a result of trauma he experienced in Vietnam. For the reasons set forth below, the Board disagrees with his claim. Service connection for VA compensation purposes will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or personal injury incurred in the line of duty or for aggravation of a preexisting injury in the active military, naval or air service. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2007). Service connection for PTSD can be awarded when the record contains (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence establishing a nexus between the claimed in-service stressor and the current symptomatology of the PTSD. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2007); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 138 (1997), and Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 129 (2002). In this matter, the Board finds service connection unwarranted for PTSD because the preponderance of the evidence indicates that the veteran does not have PTSD. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) ("Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. . . In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim."). The relevant medical evidence of record consists of VA treatment records and VA compensation examination reports dated in July 2004 and July 2007. None of this medical evidence indicates that the veteran has PTSD - the VA treatment records do not reflect a PTSD diagnosis, the July 2004 VA examiner did not diagnose the veteran with PTSD, and the July 2007 VA examiner, who stated that he had reviewed the claims file, specifically found that the veteran did not have PTSD, or any other psychiatric disability (other than nicotine dependence). As these findings are unchallenged in the record, the Board finds that the veteran does not have PTSD, and that therefore, service connection is unwarranted for PTSD. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Brammer, supra. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Board notes that it has closely reviewed and considered the veteran's statements. While these statements may be regarded as evidence, the Board must also note that laypersons without medical expertise or training are not competent to offer medical evidence on matters involving diagnosis or etiology. Therefore, the veteran's statements alone are insufficient to prove his claim. Ultimately, a claimant's personal belief, however sincere, cannot form a factual basis for granting a claim requiring medical determinations. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 492, 494-5 (1992). ORDER Service connection for PTSD is denied. ____________________________________________ John E. Ormond, Jr. Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs