Citation Nr: 18149197 Decision Date: 11/09/18 Archive Date: 11/08/18 DOCKET NO. 16-43 472 DATE: November 9, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT There is no competent evidence of record showing that the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103A, 5107 (West 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304(f), 4.125(a) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1995 to April 2002. The Board notes that this appeal originated with a November 2014 claim for service connection for PTSD. The RO denied this claim in a March 10, 2015, rating decision. Thereafter, the Veteran filed a petition to reopen in April 2015, and the RO again denied the claim in an August 2015 rating decision. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement on March 6, 2016, within one year of the issuance of the initial rating decision. Therefore, the Board finds that the issue on appeal is not one of new and material evidence but is an initial claim for service connection, as discussed below. Service Connection VA law provides that, for disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty, in the active military, naval, or air service, during a period of war, or other than a period of war, the United States will pay to any veteran thus disabled and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable from the period of service in which said injury or disease was incurred, or preexisting injury or disease was aggravated, compensation, except if the disability is a result of the veteran’s own willful misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2012). Entitlement to service connection on a direct basis requires (1) evidence of current nonservice-connected disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD, in particular, requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a) (2017); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between the current symptoms and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (2017); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). The Board has carefully reviewed the extensive evidence but finds that service connection for PTSD is not warranted. In this regard, the Board points out that a key element in establishing service connection is to show that a veteran currently has a diagnosis of the disability for which service connection is sought. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. Although the Veteran presented multiple statements as to the stressors he experienced during service, a crucial element of the claim to establish service connection is not demonstrated. Here, the Veteran was scheduled for a VA psychiatric examination dated in July 2015. The July 2015 VA examiner determined the Veteran’s symptoms do not conform to the DSM-5 criteria and, therefore, no diagnosis of PTSD was rendered. The only diagnosis provided was stimulant use disorder, in early remission. The examiner ultimately concluded that that the Veteran’s substance abuse problems are not related to a psychiatric disorder that is due to his military service since he is not currently diagnosed with one. Further, the examiner stated it is more likely than not that the Veteran’s current impairment stems from his substance abuse problems and a history of gambling. The Board observes that a VA treatment record “ Problem List ” also does not contain a diagnosis of PTSD or any other psychiatric disorders, other than alcohol, cannabis, amphetamine, and other psychostimulant use. In fact, the VA and private treatment records do not even show that the Veteran has even been treated for PTSD or any other psychiatric disorders during this appeal period. Consequently, the Board affords more weight to the July 2015 VA examination that conducted a thorough mental examination of the Veteran and reviewed the available VA and private treatment records when rendering the findings noted above. Therefore, the Board finds the evidence does not show that PTSD has been diagnosed in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125, despite the Veteran’s contentions to the contrary during the appeal period. Since regulations require medical evidence diagnosing the claimed condition, the Veteran’s self-assessment is not competent 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. In this respect, a clinical professional has the greater skill. The Veteran’s self-report that he has PTSD related to service is not credible to establish a lay nexus to service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (2006). Regarding the Veteran’s diagnosis of stimulant use disorder, the Board notes that service connection cannot be granted for disability that results from the abuse of alcohol or drugs. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 2012). Therefore, while there is no doubt that the record shows the Veteran’s dependence upon various substances and that at least a portion of his symptomatology is associated with drug use, this cannot form a basis for service connection. As such, the Board concludes that there is no reliable and/or probative evidence showing that the Veteran has PTSD or any other psychiatric disorder. In the absence of a diagnosis, there can be no valid claim. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Board thus finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54-56 (1990). YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD T. Berry, Counsel