Citation Nr: 18147092 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-26 807 DATE: November 5, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to June 1968 and June 1968 to December 1973. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Remanded Issue Remand is warranted for additional development, to include obtaining an adequate VA opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s PTSD. The Veteran asserts that while aboard the U.S.S. John Adams in 1969, he witnessed the electrocution and death of another servicemember. Establishing service connection for PTSD requires specific findings: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The diagnosis of PTSD must comply with the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). Id.; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a). The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2015 to evaluate the nature and etiology of his PTSD. He reported a history of depression starting around the time of discharge from service, and thereafter, resulting in mental health treatment. The veteran also reported the in-service stressor mentioned previously. After a mental health examination, the VA examiner set forth a diagnosis of PTSD and confirmed that the Veteran’s reported stressor met the criteria to support a PTSD diagnosis, but was not in the context of fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. The examiner did not opine as to the etiology of the condition. Where a determination is made that the Veteran did not “engage in combat with the enemy,” or the claimed stressor is unrelated to combat, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone will not be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). In such cases, the record must include service records or other credible evidence that supports and does not contradict the Veteran’s testimony. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 289 (1994). Moreover, a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD does not suffice to verify the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressors. See Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 395-396; Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 42 (1997). The ordinary meaning of the phrase “engaged in combat with the enemy,” as used in 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b), requires that a veteran have participated in events constituting an actual fight or encounter with a military foe or hostile unit or instrumentality. VAOPGCPREC 12-99 (Oct. 18, 1999). The Veteran has not described any stressor resulting in fear of hostile military or terrorist activity consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. Accordingly, 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3) does not apply. As such, in order for service connection to be granted, corroboration of his stressor is required. Though the RO could not verify the Veteran’s alleged in-service stressor, the Veteran’s report of the in-service stressor was corroborated in a May 2016 buddy statement from a fellow servicemember who also witnessed it. The fact that the buddy reported that the servicemember survived the electrocution is irrelevant, considering that he recounted similar circumstances of the Veteran’s stressor (i.e., the specific event and year of the event). Therefore, the Board concedes the occurrence of an in-service stressor and finds that remand is necessary for an addendum opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s PTSD, which takes into consideration the concession of an in-service stressor. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any relevant and outstanding VA treatment records and associate them with the electronic claims file. 2. Next, afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the current nature and etiology of his PTSD. The electronic claims file, to include a copy of this remand, must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests should be conducted. The examiner must elicit from the Veteran a detailed history of the alleged in-service events. The examiner should view the Veteran as a reliable historian as to his service and his report of his activities in service. Upon review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion as to the etiologies of any acquired psychiatric disorders, including PTSD, found to be present. With respect to each diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder, the examiner should offer an opinion on the following: Is it at least as likely as not (i.e., 50 percent or greater probability) that the acquired psychiatric disorder was incurred in, caused by, or is otherwise related to, the Veteran’s service? If PTSD is diagnosed, please detail the stressor(s) on which this diagnosis is based. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions rendered. If the examiner cannot provide the requested opinions without resorting to speculation, he/she should expressly indicate this and provide a supporting rationale as to why an opinion cannot be made without resorting to speculation. M. H. HAWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Norwood, Associate Counsel