Citation Nr: 18145788 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-40 897 DATE: October 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran’s diagnosed PTSD is related to military sexual trauma. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for Entitlement to service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from April 1982 to April 1985. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from rating decisions by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan. Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD Service connection may be established for disability resulting from diseases or injuries which are clearly present in service or for a disease diagnosed after discharge from service, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. 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. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). That an injury or disease occurred in service is not enough; there must be chronic disability resulting from that injury or disease. If there is no showing of a resulting chronic condition during service, then a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required to support a finding of chronicity. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). The Federal Circuit has held that continuity of symptomatology under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) applies only to chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (2013). Additionally, for veterans who have served 90 days or more of active service during a war period or after December 31, 1946, certain chronic disabilities are presumed to have been incurred in service if manifest to a compensable degree within one year of discharge from service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. The Veteran has asserted that his PTSD relates to an in-service sexual assault. There are special considerations for PTSD claims predicated on a personal assault. The pertinent regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5), provides that PTSD based on a personal assault in service permits evidence from sources other than the Veteran’s service records which may corroborate his or her account of the stressor incident. Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5). VA’s Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1MR) also identifies alternative sources for developing evidence of personal assault, including private medical records, civilian police reports, reports from crisis intervention centers, testimonial statements from confidants such as family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy, and personal diaries or journals. M21-1MR, Part IV, Subpart ii, 1.D.17.g. Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources. Examples of behavior changes that may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include, but are not limited to: a request for a transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance, substance abuse, episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5). It is important to note that, for personal assault PTSD claims, an after-the-fact medical opinion can also serve as the credible supporting evidence of the reported stressor. Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 280 (1999). At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran, by his own acknowledgement, has not been able to identify with precision the date of his assault. He has, however, identified a range of dates between which the assault occurred, and, given the consistency of the other details he has recounted of the assault, the Board finds the Veteran’s statements credible with respect to the fact of the assault and its circumstances. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in May 2016 to explore the etiology of his psychiatric symptoms. The examiner with whom he met furnished a diagnosis of PTSD in contemplation of the in-service assault as described by the Veteran, adding that the Veteran’s credibility was supported by patterns of behavior evident in the service personnel record, most notably an increase in alcohol consumption and high-risk behavior following the time period in which the assault occurred, and continuing post-separation. The Board finds the May 2016 VA opinion to constitute the most probative evidence of record on the presence and etiology of PTSD in this case. As noted above, behavior changes following an alleged assault constitute credible evidence that the stressor occurred, and an after-the-fact medical opinion can also be considered credible supporting evidence of the reported stressor. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence in this case preponderates in favor of the Veteran’s claim. As such, the claim for service connection for PTSD must be granted. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Z. Sahraie, Associate Counsel