Citation Nr: 18152410 Decision Date: 11/21/18 Archive Date: 11/21/18 DOCKET NO. 17-28 714 DATE: November 21, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for other specified trauma related disorder, claimed as psychiatric symptoms to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Veteran’s diagnosed other specified trauma related disorder is at least as likely as not related to service. 2. The most probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s diagnosed major depressive disorder manifested in service or is otherwise related to service. 3. The most probative evidence indicates the Veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for establishing service connection for other specified trauma related disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2018). 2. The criteria for establishing service connection for major depressive disorder and PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from November 1965 to October 1967, with service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). SERVICE CONNECTION Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability The Veteran contends that he suffers from a psychiatric disability that is due to stressors he experienced during service in Vietnam. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, in order to provide service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Service connection for PTSD requires a medical diagnosis of PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). When a claimed in-service stressor is not related to engaging in combat with the enemy or fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, a veteran’s assertions, standing alone, cannot provide evidence to establish the occurrence of a claimed stressor. Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). Rather, there must be credible supporting evidence that the event alleged as the stressor in service occurred. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 147 (1997). The Board finds the medical evidence of record shows the Veteran has a current diagnosed psychiatric disorder. See June 2014 VA examination report. Thus, the question before the Board is whether the Veteran’s current acquired psychiatric disability is related to service. A June 2014 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with other specified trauma related disorder and major depressive disorder; however, the Veteran did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD. During the examination, he described several stressors in service, including witnessing a car crash during basic training and viewing the driver mutilated through the windshield; recovering an exploded jeep while in Vietnam and disagreeing on whether to recover the car parts; driving, hearing small arms fire and bullets hitting his truck and feeling panic; and hearing mortar attacks and artillery in the distance. The examiner attributed the Veteran’s symptoms of recurrent memories, distress in response to seeing car crashes, avoidance of all military related people, places and things, hypervigilance and startled response to his diagnosed other specified trauma related disorder. He attributed the depressive symptoms to major depressive disorder. The examiner opined that the Veteran’s other specified trauma related disorder was more likely than not related to service. He reasoned that the Veteran’s exposure to the car crash during basic training and the jeep explosion while in Vietnam lead to his current avoidance of seeing car crashes and his emotional distress when he sees one. He concluded that the Veteran was most impacted by avoidance symptoms, including avoiding being around reminders and distress at exposure. The examiner further opined the Veteran’s major depressive disorder was less likely than not caused by military stressors. He reasoned that its onset was in the 1990’s after a close friend died and typically recurred when other friends have died, which left him to reflect on his own mortality, and when he disagreed with others. He noted the Veteran himself did not see a link between his military experiences and depression and believed his current depression had been caused by the stress of waiting for resolution of his current claim for service connection. The Board finds the VA examiner’s opinions to be highly probative and persuasive, as they are based on a review of the evidence of record, reflect consideration of the Veteran’s reported stressor events and medical history, and are supported with reasoned medical explanations. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s claimed stressors have not been verified, as VA’s efforts to do so have not been successful. See October 2016 VA Memorandum. However, the Veteran’s service personnel records indicate he was a wheeled vehicle mechanic, served in Vietnam from March 1967 to October 1967, and participated in the Vietnam Counteroffensive, Phase II. The Board finds no reason to question the Veteran’s credibility. The Board finds his statements regarding his in-service stressors are credible and consistent with the nature and circumstances of his service. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). With respect to PTSD, the Board reiterates that the June 2014 VA examiner found the Veteran did not meet the diagnostic criteria to support a diagnosis of PTSD. Although the Board notes that VA primary care treatment records in May 2013 and July 2013 indicated a positive PTSD screen, there is no indication that he has been diagnosed with PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) linked to an in-service stressor. In summary, after resolving all doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for other specified trauma related disorder is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to TDIU is remanded The Board notes that its decision above grants service connection for other specified trauma related disorder and, as such, impacts the Veteran’s claim for TDIU as the RO will have to assign an evaluation for the disability in the first instance. Accordingly, remand is warranted. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: After the grant of service connection for other specified trauma related disorder has been implemented, and any additional development deemed necessary is accomplished, readjudicate the claim for entitlement to TDIU. If the claim remains denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case. K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. C. Birder, Associate Counsel