Citation Nr: 18146826 Decision Date: 11/01/18 Archive Date: 11/01/18 DOCKET NO. 16-06 515 DATE: November 1, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include a major depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT Probative evidence of record attributes the Veteran’s PTSD with a major depressive disorder to one of his verified in-service stressors. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD and a major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1983 to November 1987. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and a major depressive disorder, is granted. Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection can be demonstrated for a disease diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). In order to establish service connection, the evidence must generally 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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995). A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his current symptomatology. 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). The Board is charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). On VA examination in December 2014, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD and major depressive disorder, recurrent moderate. The first element required for service connection, the existence of a present disability, is thus met. In treatment notes and in the December 2014 VA examination, the Veteran asserted that his PTSD was related to service. The Veteran indicated that he has recurring visions and nightmares of two incidents in service. The first is the September 1985 incident in which he broke his ankle, for which he is already service connected, and woke up during the March 1987 surgery to remove the hardware installed to repair that injury. The second is an April 1986 vehicle rollover incident, in which one of the other soldiers in the vehicle was apparently seriously injured and the Veteran helped to pull him from the wreckage. Although the details concerning the Veteran waking up during surgery are not recorded in his service treatment records, his ankle injury, surgery, and a Gama Goat vehicle rollover incident are all recorded therein. The second element required for service connection, an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, is thus met. In any event, the third element required for service connection, a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, is also met. As noted above, on VA examination in December 2014, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD and a major depressive disorder. The Veteran reported his in-service stressors, including the incidents described above. The examiner recorded the Veteran’s pre-military and post-military history and the results of mental status examination. The examiner reported that the Veteran’s in-service stressors involving his ankle injury and the vehicle rollover were sufficient to support the diagnosis of PTSD. (Continued on the next page)   In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. There is evidence of diagnosed PTSD with a major depressive disorder, and evidence of two in-service incidents that were adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD. The preponderance of the evidence supports the Veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD and a major depressive disorder. As such, the claim is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, supra. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Haas, Associate Counsel