Citation Nr: 18150681 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 18-05 805 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Affording the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran’s PTSD is related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran’s PTSD was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from February 1965 to February 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of April 2015 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied the benefit being sought. Service connection for PTSD is granted Service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a) (conforming to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); (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 (2017). The Veteran contends that he has PTSD as a result of service. Specifically, he contends that during active service he was he was kicked in the ankle by his sergeant, and fell. He tried complaining but the sergeant made discriminatory comments to him, and he became afraid, “because in the mid-60’s with what was happening with civil rights and race… [he] learned very fast from older black soldiers what not to discuss or question while serving in the US Army.” Since the in-service incident, he has suffered from a psychiatric disorder. The Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD. Thus, the first element is of a service connection claim is satisfied. The Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) are absent complaint, treatment, or diagnosis of any psychiatric disorder while in service. However, his personnel records show that he was absent without leave (AWOL), from December 28, 1966, to January 6, 1967, a violation of Article 86 UCMJ (United States Code of Military Justice). He was fined $25 per month for two months. In support of his claim, the Veteran has provided lay statements from his nephew, L. S., and childhood friend, W. R. F., both of whom are also veterans and reported that the Veteran told them how he was treated in the military, including by his sergeant. Further, in a June 2016 dated letter from C. S., the Veteran’s niece, she states that her uncle was depressed after military service and she overheard him tell her father and grandfather stories of what he experienced in the military. He also shared with her how he was kicked and punched in the face, and when he once complained, his superior made discriminatory comments to him. He became afraid to complain thereafter. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2016. The examiner diagnosed PTSD and no other mental disorders. He concluded that “[t]he Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD, and this disorder is associated with him being physically assaulted by a sergeant, on more than one occasion, during basic training.” The July 2016 VA medical examiner’s findings provide a nexus to service and the Veteran’s treatment therein, by the sergeant. It is, therefore, highly probative and weighs in favor of a grant for service connection. The Board finds the Veteran’s lay statements as to his military abuse by the sergeant to be both competent and credible. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). Additionally, the Board finds that the Veteran’s nephew, niece and fellow veteran/childhood friend are competent to report what he told them, as well as, their observations of the Veteran after service. The lay evidence is also credible. In summary, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran has PTSD, which is related to his military service. Thus, resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, service connection for PTSD is granted. 38 U.S.C.§ 5107 (b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2017). D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. Stevens, Associate Counsel