Citation Nr: 18145373 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/26/18 DOCKET NO. 16-13 162 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Medical evidence reflects a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). 2. Credible supporting evidence reflects that the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor occurred. 3. Medical evidence links current symptomology and the claimed in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1967 to February 1970 with the U.S. Army, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. Service connection for PTSD has unique evidentiary requirements. It generally requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); see Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 126 (2002). As to the first element, the record indicates medical evidence diagnosing the condition. Since October 2013, the Veteran has been assessed and reassessed as having PTSD by the VA, and has been receiving treatment for PTSD from the VA since the October 2013 assessment. A VA psychiatrist performed an initial screening on the Veteran in September 2013 and referred the Veteran to a VA mental health clinic where a Licensed Clinical Social Worker assessed the Veteran as having PTSD in October 2013. Also, as a result of the Veteran’s application for benefits in July 2013, a psychiatrist performed a VA examination of the Veteran in April 2014 and found that all PTSD diagnostic criteria A through H were met for this Veteran based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5). Further, the examiner found that the Veteran’s stressor was adequate to support the diagnosis for PTSD. However, despite the finding that all diagnostic criteria were met for PTSD, in a different section of the report the examiner stated that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD, the Veteran’s symptoms did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and that the diagnosis for this Veteran was persistent depressive disorder with pure dysthymic syndrome (depression). The examiner also stated that “[t]he condition claimed was at least as likely as not (50% or greater probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or illness.” The examiner stated that “…it may be reasonably clinically concluded that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s chronic depressive disorder has been due to his conceded stressor of fear of hostile military or terrorist activities.” Due in part to this medical report service connection for depressive disorder was granted. For the purposes of finding service connection for the disability of PTSD under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), the Board notes that the VA psychiatrist in April 2014 specifically found that all PTSD diagnostic criteria A through H were present for this Veteran under DSM-5 and the Veteran’s stressor was adequate to support a diagnosis for PTSD, there were repeated assessments of PTSD by the Licensed Clinical Social Worker since October 2013, and the Veteran is currently under treatment for PTSD by the VA. These facts support the Board’s finding that sufficient medical evidence diagnosing PTSD exists for the purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). As to the second evidentiary requirement, the Veteran has met the requirement of presenting credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred. The Veteran provided Department of the Army Operational Reports from the time that he was assigned to the 137th Engineer Company in Vietnam. The Operational Reports recounted activities of the 137th Engineer Company for periods ending 31 July 1969 and 31 October 1969. The October 1969 Operational Report stated that enemy activity was relatively heavy during the reporting period, with 1 U.S. personnel killed and 6 wounded in action from enemy mines. The July 1969 Operational Report stated that enemy activity resulted in 2 soldiers killed in action and 3 wounded in a mining incident on July 14, 1969. The Veteran stated that the two deaths reported for July 14, 1969 were his friends, and he provided public records from The Vietnam Veterans Memorial indicating the names of two soldiers from the 137th Engineer Company who died on that date. In addition to the two soldiers the Veteran identified as his friends who died on July 14, 1969, the public records indicated deaths of other soldiers assigned to the 137th Engineer Company during the Veteran’s tour. The Veteran’s Representative provided corrected service records clarifying that the Veteran had earned the Army Good Conduct Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal with Four Bronze Service Stars, the Valorous Unit Award, the Meritorious Unit Commendation, and the Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with Palm Unit Citation. The Veteran also provided public records from the U.S. Army Center for Military History indicating that the 137th Engineer Company received campaign participation credit in Vietnam for the Tet 69/Counteroffensive, Summer-Fall 1969, and Winter-Spring 1970, in addition to the Meritorious and Valorous unit medals. The supporting evidence that the Veteran provided as to a stressor is credible evidence. Corroboration of every detail of a claimed in-service stressor, including the veteran’s personal participation, is not required; rather, a veteran only needs to offer independent evidence of a stressful event that is sufficient to imply his or her personal exposure. See Pentecost, 16 Vet. App. at 128. Having provided credible supporting evidence, the Veteran has established the existence of an in-service stressor. Furthermore, there is legal significance to the VA psychiatrist’s finding in April 2014 that the stressor for this veteran was based on the Veteran’s fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, in addition to the examiner’s finding that the stressor was adequate for a diagnosis of PTSD. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3), where a stressor is related to the veteran’s fear of hostile military activity, a VA psychiatrist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD, and the veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, the veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. Here, the Veteran’s service-related stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service, and the VA psychiatrist confirmed the stressor. While the VA examiner’s report is somewhat unclear, the examiner did indicate that all DSM-5 criteria for a PTSD diagnosis were met by endorsing check boxes for all of the required criteria. Therefore, in this case the Veteran’s statement establishes the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. Finally, the third evidentiary requirement has been met with medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. The VA examination indicates a link between the Veteran’s mental condition and the in-service stressor as well as fear of hostile military activity. The VA examination indicated that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms, along with the diagnosed chronic depressive disorder, was at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) incurred in or caused by the claimed in service injury, event or illness. Given the above, service connection for PTSD is granted. Nathan Kroes Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Ruben D. Rudolph, Jr., Associate Counsel