Citation Nr: 18147484 Decision Date: 11/05/18 Archive Date: 11/05/18 DOCKET NO. 18-07 877 DATE: November 5, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s PTSD is related to a sexual assault during active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from February to August 1986. The Veteran testified in support of these claims during a hearing held at the RO before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in October 2018. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to prevail on a claim of service connection, generally, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service occurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In certain cases, competent lay evidence may demonstrate the presence of any of these elements. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection for PTSD similarly requires (1) medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the disorder, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred, and (3) a link established by medical evidence between current symptoms and an in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The diagnosis of PTSD must be established in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), which provides that all psychiatric diagnoses must conform to the American Psychiatric Association’s DSM. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The record does not reflect, and the Veteran does not contend, that he engaged in combat with the enemy, has a combat-related stressor, or has a non-combat stressor related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. Thus, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(f)(2) and (3) are not applicable here. If there is no combat experience, or if there is a determination that the Veteran engaged in combat but the claimed stressor is not related to such combat, there must be independent evidence to corroborate the Veteran’s statement as to the occurrence of the claimed stressor. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 288-89 (1994). The Veteran’s testimony, by itself, cannot, as a matter of law, establish the occurrence of a non-combat stressor. Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). Instead, the Veteran states that his PTSD is based on a sexual assault in service. Because personal assault is an extremely personal and sensitive issue, many incidents are not officially reported, which creates a proof problem with respect to the occurrence of the claimed stressor. In such situations, it is not unusual for there to be an absence of service records documenting the events the Veteran has alleged. The victims of such trauma may not necessarily report the full circumstances of the trauma for many years after the trauma. Thus, when a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the Veteran’s service records may corroborate the Veteran’s account of the stressor incident. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5); see also Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 277 (1999). 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). 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. Further, corroboration of every detail of a claimed stressor, including the Veteran’s personal participation, is not required; rather, a Veteran only needs to offer independent evidence of a stressful event that is sufficient to imply his personal exposure. See Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002). In March 2017, the Veteran submitted an undated medical opinion from J.M., his counselor at the Vet Center. J.M. provided a detailed analysis of the Veteran’s current symptomatology and mental health history and stated that the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD. The medical opinion from J.M. states that the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD and that it was due to the sexual assault he suffered during military service. For personal assault PTSD claims, an after-the-fact medical opinion can serve as the credible supporting evidence of the stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5); Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Bradford v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 200, 207 (2006); Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 280 (1999). Therefore, the medical opinion from J.M. provides highly probative evidence of both the PTSD diagnosis in conformance with the DSM, and corroboration of the in-service stressor. Additionally, the Veteran submitted a June 2017 statement from his brother, J.T., stating that the Veteran came back from the military acting much differently than before his service and that the Veteran told him about the sexual assault in service. The Veteran underwent a VA PTSD examination in May 2017. The examiner stated that the Veteran was not diagnosed with PTSD due to the examiner’s findings that the Veteran was embellishing and exaggerating. However, given J.M.’s personal experience treating the Veteran and his detailed opinion, the Board finds that J.M.’s medical opinion is more probative than the May 2017 VA medical opinion. During his October 2018 hearing, the Veteran testified regarding the details of his sexual assault and the effects of it on his life. He also testified that he reported the sexual assault to his commanding officer, who told him that it did not happen and did nothing to assist the Veteran. The Board regrets that it has taken so long to grant this claim. The Veteran’s PTSD is due to sexual assault during his active military service. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD secondary to military sexual trauma is granted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Parke