Citation Nr: 18146134 Decision Date: 10/30/18 Archive Date: 10/30/18 DOCKET NO. 14-35 417A DATE: ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is in favor of finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is related to military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, claimed as PTSD, have been met. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from February 2005 to June 2009. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Service Connection 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, 1131 (2012). 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). VA must give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in a case where a veteran is seeking service connection. 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The Veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD, which he asserts is due to his service in Iraq. Service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with VA regulations; (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is related to active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). The Veteran served in Iraq from February 2006 to September 2006 as a motor transport operator. During his March 2017 VA examination, the Veteran described improvised explosive devices (IEDs) striking his convoy and witnessing several deaths while in Iraq. The Veteran also reported firing his weapon at three locals who were stopped for carrying IEDs. The Veteran’s statements are supported by a post-deployment questionnaire in his service treatment records that documents that he engaged in direct combat and saw wounded, killed, and/or dead enemies. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran should be considered a combat veteran under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) with respect to the underlying events he described. Further, October 2012 private treatment records show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. The physician’s rationale was the Veteran’s PTSD stems from his combat service in Iraq and his involvement in intense combat and life-threatening situations. The physician particularly noted that the Veteran displays the classic PTSD symptoms such as occupation and social impairment, experiencing intense fear, difficulty concentrating, and difficulty falling asleep, which have worsened over time. Contrary to the Veteran’s private physician’s diagnosis, a VA examiner declared that the Veteran does not meet the PTSD criteria and suggested that the Veteran was likely exaggerating his emotional and behavioral difficulties. However, the VA examiner made the statement without explanation. Therefore, the Board assigns the VA examiner’s opinion significantly less probative value. Therefore, the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is related to active service.   However, the Veteran should be aware that no change in his actual benefits is expected from this grant of service connection, as the symptomatology associated with his PTSD would be duplicative and overlapping with his already service-connected anxiety disorder. The Board notes that a separate rating would constitute the “pyramiding” of ratings for the same underlying disorder, which is prohibited under VA law. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; Cf. Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009). B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD I. McGee, Law Clerk