Citation Nr: 0814132 Decision Date: 04/29/08 Archive Date: 05/08/08 DOCKET NO. 03-33 027 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. J. Janec, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from January 1970 to November 1971. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2002 rating decision of the Huntington, West Virginia, Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) that, in relevant part, denied service connection for PTSD. In March 2005 and December 2006, the Board remanded the case for further development. The requested development was completed and the case was returned to the Board for appellate review. In April 2008, the veteran's representative submitted additional evidence without a waiver of agency of original jurisdiction review as required by 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304 (2007). Nevertheless, based on the decision below, the Board finds that a remand is not necessary. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in equipoise on the issue of whether the veteran has PTSD as a result of a verified in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, PTSD was incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304(f) (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Veterans Claims Assistance Act In 2000, the President signed into law the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA). See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (West 2002 & Supp. 2007). Given that the benefit sought has been granted in the decision below, the Board finds that a full discussion regarding compliance with the VCAA is not necessary. Analysis The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the veteran's claims file, which includes his written contentions, service treatment records, VA medical records, private medical records, and lay statements. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate each claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to each claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be warranted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between the current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. If the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Where a determination is made that the 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. See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). In such cases, the record must contain service records or other credible evidence that supports and does not contradict the veteran's testimony. See Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 289 (1994). Corroboration does not require "that there be corroboration of every detail including the appellant's personal participation in the identifying process." Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307, 311 (1997). The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims similarly held in Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128-29 (2002) that while the veteran's unit records did not specifically show that he was present during the alleged rocket attacks, "the fact that he was stationed with a unit that was present while such attacks occurred would strongly suggest that he was, in fact, exposed to the attacks." If all the evidence is in relative equipoise, the benefit of the doubt should be resolved in the veteran's favor, and the claim should be granted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. If the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the claim must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The veteran contends that he has PTSD as a result of various stressors he experienced while he was serving in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era. His service personnel records indicate that he was assigned to Company A and a Headquarters Company of the 523rd Signal Battalion from May 1971 to November 1971. His personnel records do not definitively indicate that he served in combat or engaged in combat with the enemy. In his initial stressor statement, he related that there were heavy rocket attacks near his base, which increased around the 4th of July in 1971. In an April 2006 email response to a query from VA, the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) (formerly the U.S. Armed Services Center for Research of Unit Records) confirmed that the 523rd Signal Battalion participated in counter-intelligence sweeps. Elements of the reporting unit received small arms fire that resulted in three Viet Cong killed-in-action and one U.S. soldier wounded-in-action on July 4, 1971. Daily Journals from elements of the 23rd Infantry Division dated July 1-6, 1971, show that there was light enemy contact in the combined tactical area of interest during the reporting period. Based on this independent corroborating evidence, the veteran is found to have been exposed to a verified stressor while he served in Vietnam. See Doran, Suozzi, Pentecost. With regard to the question of whether the veteran has PTSD as a result of his confirmed stressor, there is medical evidence in support of, and against his claim. Upon VA examination in July 2006, the examiner concluded that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Rather, he was diagnosed with atypical depression with intermittent psychotic episodes. In contrast, a VA discharge summary shows that the veteran participated in an in-patient PTSD treatment program from March 17, 2003 to May 16, 2003. He was evaluated by a psychiatrist and diagnosed with PTSD. Among the stressors he discussed during his therapy was being exposed to a rocket attack on July 4, while stationed in Chu Lai. VA clinical notes from the same psychiatrist, dated from April to December 2005, continue to show that the veteran is being treated for PTSD. In weighing the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise on the issue of whether the veteran has PTSD as a result of his military service. While the July 2006 VA examination explained his opinion and reviewed the claims file, the veteran was examined by a VA psychiatrist in conjunction with his 2003 hospitalization and the same psychiatrist has continued the diagnosis during subsequent treatment sessions. Accordingly, resolving any reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, the Board concludes that service connection for PTSD is warranted. ORDER Service connection for PTSD is granted. ____________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs