Citation Nr: 18145371 Decision Date: 10/26/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 17-25 532 DATE: October 26, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The competent evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 4.125 (2018).   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1971 to August 1993. 1. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Service connection is granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2018). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 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 (2018); 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). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the veteran’s particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for PTSD. He reports that he has dreams approximately once or twice a week about his service in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam War, which he believes supports a diagnosis of PTSD. Unfortunately, the competent medical evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. In this regard, the report of a February 2016 VA mental health examination report shows that the VA examiner specifically found that the Veteran did not meet the DSM criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD after full mental status examination and review of the Veteran’s relevant medical history. In addition, the Veteran submitted the report of a December 2015 private psychological evaluation, in which the private psychologist found that the Veteran’s reported symptoms did not support the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD due to lack of symptoms. Furthermore, there is no reference to a diagnosis of PTSD in the Veteran’s VA treatment records or in his available private treatment records. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements of symptoms which he believes supports a diagnosis of PTSD. The Board has no reason to question the credibility of the Veteran. That said, medical/mental health training and credentials are required to provide a psychiatric diagnosis that can be considered competent evidence, and to date the Veteran has not been diagnosed with PTSD. The Veteran is competent to describe his condition, but he does not have the requisite training and credentials to ascertain whether his symptoms are indicative of a diagnosable disorder. This is a complex medical question requiring a greater degree of expertise than the Veteran has been shown to possess. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377.   As the competent evidence shows no current diagnosis of PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a), the first element of service connection is not met, and the claim for service connection for PTSD is denied. BISWAJIT CHATTERJEE Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Murray, Counsel