Citation Nr: 0813990 Decision Date: 04/29/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 05-08 755 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Theresa M. Catino, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active military duty from August 1973 to December 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from two rating actions of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New Orleans, Louisiana. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran is diagnosed with PTSD. 2. The veteran engaged in combat with enemy forces, and his claimed stressors (including witnessing the deaths and wounding of fellow servicemen during service in Grenada) are related to that combat. 3. Medical evidence associates the veteran's current symptomatology (including irritability, isolation, sleep disturbance, nightmares, intrusive memories of combat experiences, and numbness/avoidance of reminders of trauma) with his in-service stressors. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154(b), 5103(a), 5103A, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f) (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Duties To Notify And To Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), which was enacted on November 9, 2000, eliminated the concept of a well-grounded claim, redefined the obligations of VA with respect to the duty to assist, and imposed on VA certain notification requirements. Since the enactment of the law, the VCAA has been codified at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, & 5126. This change in the law is applicable to all claims filed on or after the date of enactment of the VCAA and to those claims which were filed before the date of enactment but which were not yet final as of that date. The Board has considered this legislation but finds that, given the favorable action taken herein with regard to the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, no further discussion of the VCAA is required with respect to this issue. See, e.g., Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384 (1993); VAOPGCPREC 16-92, 57 Fed. Reg. 49,747 (1992). Analysis Initially, the Board notes that the veteran failed to report to two VA examinations recently scheduled in conjunction with his PTSD claim. As the issue on appeal is an original compensation claim, the Board will proceed to adjudicate it based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655(b) (2007). Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2007). Service connection for PTSD in particular requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing this disability in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2007); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). Service medical records in the present case are negative for complaints of, treatment for, or findings of PTSD. Post-service medical records reflect treatment for, and evaluation of, a psychiatric disability variously diagnosed as PTSD, dysthymia, and a chronic adjustment disorder since July 2003. To the extent that the veteran has received diagnoses of psychiatric disabilities other than PTSD, the Board notes that a "clear" diagnosis of PTSD is no longer required. Rather, a diagnosis of PTSD must simply be established in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), which mandates that, for VA purposes, all mental disorder diagnoses must conform to the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). See, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2007). Consequently, the veteran's receipt of diagnoses of PTSD in the present case is sufficient for § 3.304(f) purposes, despite the additional diagnoses of dysthymia and a chronic adjustment disorder in February 2004. The veteran maintains that, while serving with 1st SOCOM of Task Force 160 in Grenada in the early to mid-1980s, he witnessed the wounding and killing of fellow servicemen. In addition, he asserts that, at times during his Grenada service, his unit was "sent in" with no intelligence data, body armor, or support from government agencies. Service personnel records indicate that the veteran was a pilot and received the Expert Infantryman Badge, the Senior Army Aviator Badge, and the Parachutist Badge. In addition, he was awarded the Air Medal "[f]or distinguishing himself by exceptionally meritorious achievement while performing combat aerial flight during Operation Urgent Fury, a joint service operation conducted during the period [of] 23 October 1983 to 29 October 1983." According to the citation, [d]uring combat assault operations, . . . [the veteran] displayed utmost courage and calmness while under intense enemy fire. His demonstrated professionalism, dedication to duty, and integrity when called to fight should be emulated by all. [His] . . . display of superior airmanship while flying under combat conditions was in keeping with the finest traditions of military service and reflects great credit on him. His receipt of the Air Medal supports his contentions that, during his service in Grenada, he participated in combat against enemy forces where he witnessed the deaths and wounding of fellow servicemen. See Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002) (corroboration of every detail of a veteran's claimed in-service stressor, including his or her personal participation, is not required and that the fact that a veteran was stationed with a unit that was present while enemy attacks occurred would strongly suggest that he/she was, in fact, exposed to the attacks). As the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with enemy forces and that his claimed stressors (including the witnessing of the killing and wounding of fellow servicemen) are related to that combat and are consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of his service, his lay testimony alone establishes the occurrence of his claimed in-service stressors. Credible supporting evidence is not necessary to corroborate the veteran's lay testimony. Cohen, supra. Moreover, with regard to the matter of whether medical evidence links current symptomatology with the claimed in-service stressor(s), the Board notes that, in a June 2005 letter, a VA psychologist who treats the veteran explained that the diagnosis of PTSD was based on "a battery of psychological tests," the results of which were indicative of mild to moderate levels of depression as well as moderate levels of combat exposure. According to this psychologist, although the veteran did not exhibit hallucinations, dissociative flashback episodes that create a sense that a traumatic event is recurring, or a sense of a foreshortened future, he was likely to avoid of crowds (and potentially pleasurable activities) and to react to interpersonal conflict with initial irritability followed by withdrawal (to avoid escalation of the situation). Previously, in July 2003, this VA psychologist concluded that the veteran had PTSD manifested by re-experiencing, numbness/avoidance, and hyperarousal symptomatology, as a result of his combat duty with enemy forces in Grenada. Indeed, at VA outpatient treatment sessions for PTSD, the veteran complained of irritability, isolation, sleep disturbance, nightmares, and intrusive memories of combat experiences. Consequently, the Board finds that the claims folder contains medical evidence associating his current symptomatology with his claimed in-service stressors. Evidence of record clearly indicates, therefore, that the veteran engaged in combat with enemy forces and that his claimed stressors (including the witnessing of the deaths, and wounding, of fellow servicemen) are related to that combat and are consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of his service. He has been diagnosed with PTSD and medical evidence associates his current symptomatology (including irritability, isolation, sleep disturbance, nightmares, intrusive memories of combat experiences, and numbness/avoidance of reminders of trauma) with his claimed in-service stressors. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (2007). Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence supports the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 2002). ORDER Service connection for PTSD is granted. ____________________________________________ L. HOWELL Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs