Citation Nr: 0813850 Decision Date: 04/25/08 Archive Date: 05/01/08 DOCKET NO. 04-41 706 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. M. Macierowski, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from July 1996 to February 2000, and from February 2003 to June 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio (RO). In February 2008, subsequent to the most recently issued supplemental statement of the case (SSOC), the veteran submitted a one-page statement responding to said SSOC, attaching her Enlisted Record Brief. These 3 pages essentially indicate the veteran's assignments over the course of her military service, specifically her unit's overseas service in Bosnia, and the resulting award of certain overseas campaign decorations. While these actual pages were not previously considered by the RO, review thereof indicates that the information contained therein is duplicative of that found in the veteran's service personnel records, already associated with the claims file. Thus, for appellate adjudication to proceed would pose no risk of prejudice to the veteran. FINDING OF FACT A valid diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) based on a verified stressor related to the veteran's military service is not of record. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was not incurred in, or aggravated by, active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION With respect to the veteran's claim for service connection, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (West 2002 & Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326 (2007). Prior to initial adjudication of the veteran's claim, a letter dated in August 2003 satisfied the duty to notify provisions. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (1); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183, 187 (2002). Further, the purpose behind the notice requirement has been satisfied because the veteran has been afforded a meaningful opportunity to participate effectively in the processing of her claim, to include the opportunity to present pertinent evidence. Simmons v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 892, 896 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881, 889 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that although VCAA notice errors are presumed prejudicial, reversal is not required if VA can demonstrate that the error did not affect the essential fairness of the adjudication); Overton v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 427 (2006). The veteran's service medical records and VA medical treatment records have been obtained; the veteran did not identify any private medical records pertinent to her claim for service connection for PTSD. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A, 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Although the duty to assist includes providing a medical examination or obtaining a medical opinion when such is necessary to make a decision on the claim, a VA examination was not accorded the veteran in this case, as the threshold issue of a verified stressor was not satisfied. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c) (4). There is no indication in the record that any additional evidence, relevant to the issues decided herein, is available and not part of the claims file. See Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004). As there is no indication that any failure on the part of VA to provide additional notice or assistance reasonably affects the outcome of the case, the Board finds that any such failure is harmless. See Mayfield v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 537 (2006); see also Dingess/Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Additionally, the Board has thoroughly reviewed all the evidence in the veteran's claims folder. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, all of the evidence submitted by the veteran or on her behalf. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record, but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence). The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and on what this evidence shows, or fails to show, on the claim. The veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the claimant). Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from diseases or injuries which are clearly present in service or for a disease diagnosed after discharge from service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish service connection for the veteran's claimed disorders, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of inservice incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed inservice disease or injury and the current disability. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (2007); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an inservice stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In adjudicating a claim for service connection for PTSD, the evidence necessary to establish the incurrence of a stressor during service to support a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD will vary depending on whether or not the veteran was "engaged in combat with the enemy." See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 66 (1993). If it is determined through military citation or other supportive evidence that a veteran engaged in combat with the enemy, and the claimed stressors are related to combat, the veteran's lay testimony regarding the reported stressors must be accepted as conclusive evidence as to their actual occurrence and no further development or corroborative evidence will be necessary, provided that the testimony is found to be satisfactory, that is, not contradicted by service records, and "consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of such service." 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d), (f); Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 289 (1994). However, if it is determined that a veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or the claimed stressor is not related to combat, the veteran's lay testimony alone will not be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. In such cases, the record must contain service records or other corroborative evidence which substantiates or verifies the veteran's testimony or statements as to the occurrence of the claimed stressors. See Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91, 98 (1993). In this case, the veteran contends that she currently has PTSD as a direct result of a stressor she alleges to have experienced during active duty. Specifically, the veteran asserted in her September 2003 stressor statement that during her service in Bosnia in September 1997, she witnessed a land mine explosion that severely injured a local man, and took part in transporting that man to the local hospital for treatment. To that end, the veteran's service personnel records confirm that she was stationed in Bosnia from March 1997 to September 1997. However, the veteran's service personnel records do not indicate evidence of awards or decorations indicative of combat, nor is there any objective evidence that she was tasked with any combat responsibilities. As there is no evidence that the veteran served in combat, the Board concludes that she does not meet the criteria for being considered a "combat veteran" under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b). As such, her lay testimony alone is not enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). In this case, the record must contain service records or other corroborative evidence that substantiates or verifies the veteran's testimony or statements as to the occurrence of the claimed stressor. See West (Carlton) v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70, 76 (1994); Zarycki, 6 Vet. App. at 98. Moreover, a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD does not suffice to verify the occurrence of the claimed inservice stressors. See Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 395-96; Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 142 (1997). In this case, the veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is based, in part, on this stressor event. However, the veteran has offered no competent corroborating evidence of her claimed inservice stressor, and her service department records also do not support the claim regarding her claimed inservice stressor. Doran, 6 Vet. App. at 283. That the veteran served overseas in Bosnia in 1997 is not in dispute. However, consequent to the June 2007 Remand with respect to the veteran's appeal, the RO sent a request to the Joint Services Records Research Command (JSRRC) in August 2007, specifically listing the veteran's claimed stressor event with the date, location, and details as supplied by the veteran. In October 2007, JSRRC responded that working in conjunction with the Center for Military History in Washington, D.C., they were unable to locate any evidence documenting the land mine explosion, or the related events, claimed by the veteran as having occurred in September 1997. No other documentation or supporting evidence of this stressor, to include those types of lay evidence of which the veteran was notified in the RO's August 2003 letter could be submitted, are associated with the claims file. Accordingly, no verified inservice stressors are of record. Again, service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the condition; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor occurred; and, (3) a link established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an inservice stressor. To that end, although the veteran has a December 2002 diagnosis of PTSD from a VA mental health professional, who confirmed that diagnosis in an October 2004 opinion letter, the inservice stressor event on which the diagnosis is partially based still has not been verified. Thus, the diagnosis fails to satisfy the VA criteria noted above. The veteran argues in her February 2008 statement that she disagrees with the denial of service connection because her PTSD is the result of both her inservice stressor event and other, nonservice-related stressors. That her PTSD diagnosis is based on both claimed inservice and postservice stressor events is not in dispute. However, successful substantiation of a claim for service connection for PTSD requires that the claimed inservice event on which a non-combat veteran's PTSD diagnosis is based is independently confirmed. See Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 395; see also Dizoglio, 9 Vet. App. at 166; Zarycki, 6 Vet. App. at 98. Absent verification of the inservice stressor event, service connection is not warranted. Because the stressor event on which the veteran bases her claim has not been verified by corroborating evidence, and thus a diagnosis of PTSD based on a verified stressor event is not of record, the preponderance of the evidence is against her claim for service connection for PTSD. As such, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable, and the claim must be denied. See 38 C.F.R. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). ORDER Service connection for PTSD is denied. ____________________________________________ JOY A. MCDONALD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs