Citation Nr: 18145723 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/29/18 DOCKET NO. 15-25 358 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s PTSD is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The service-connection criteria for PTSD have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5103A (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the United States Army from April 1968 to April 1970 and from November 1990 to July 1991. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Generally, the evidence must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995); see Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (noting that nexus may be demonstrated by a showing of continuity of symptomatology where the disability claimed qualifies as a chronic disease listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a)). 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 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) and 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (requiring PTSD diagnoses to conform to the DSM-5). Here, as will be further explained below, the service-connection elements for PTSD are satisfied. The Veteran experienced an in-service stressor, he has a current diagnosis of PTSD, and the record supports the causal relationship between the stressor and the current diagnosis of PTSD. Because the evidence is at least in equipoise, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD will be granted. With regard to an in-service event or stressor, the Veteran reported several stressor events. As detailed in a March 2012 letter, the Veteran reported during the first week on assigment in Okinawa, he was working with motors and fuses and one of the fuses exploded resulting in a member of his unit being taken to the infirmary. The Veteran reported he never saw that solider again. During his Board hearing, the Veteran relayed his resulting fear of handling explosives—a task he was charged with throughout his military career—as he was not adequately trained for such duties. Further, the Veteran reported he experienced live ammunition firing overhead and being warned not to stand up due to the risk of being shot. Although the Veteran’s claimed stressors have not been verified, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements regarding his in-service stressors to be credible and related to actual or threatened death. In addition, service records support that the Veteran was assigned to the “175th Ordinance Company (Ammo).” Further, the October 2018 letter from his treating psychologist indicated that the Veteran’s PTSD stemmed from the aforementioned in-service stressors. This is consistent with the PTSD diagnosis and discussion of in-service stressors in his VA treatment records. With regard to a current diagnosis, VA medical center (VAMC) treatment records from January 2011 through July 2011 show the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD on several occasions. The forgoing diagnoses of PTSD are presumed to accord with the DSM criteria, and were rendered during the pendency of this claim. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 139-42 (1997). The Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination. However, the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD by his treating psychologists on several occasions. Given the consistency of the PTSD diagnosis by several different VAMC medical professionals forming a medical consensus, the weight of the medical evidence tends to show that the Veteran does in fact have PTSD. Therefore, the current diagnosis element is satisfied. Finally, there is a medical nexus between the in-service stressors and the Veteran’s current PTSD diagnosis. In October 2018, the Veteran’s treating psychologist, Dr. S.C., found the Veteran’s PTSD is related directly to his military experiences. Indeed, nearly all of the PTSD treatment noted the Veteran’s military-related insomnia, anxiety, and other symptoms of PTSD, and then went on to diagnose him with PTSD. Therefore, the Board assigns significant probative value to these opinions. Accordingly, resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that a medical nexus exists between the Veteran’s PTSD and the stressors incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). Because all three service connection elements are satisfied, service connection for PTSD is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; 3.304(f). A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Laura A. Crawford, Associate Counsel