Citation Nr: 18154672 Decision Date: 11/30/18 Archive Date: 11/30/18 DOCKET NO. 16-49 434 DATE: November 30, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT 1. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 1968 to February 1970, and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder To establish service connection, there must be: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Entitlement to service connection for PTSD has a specific requirement of medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (requiring diagnosis to conform to DSM-IV and be supported by findings on examination report); 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). VA has amended 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) to require the diagnosis to conform to DSM-5. That amendment applies to cases such as this one that were certified to the Board after to August 4, 2014. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.125 In relevant part, 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that VA give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability or death benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (The Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. Competent lay evidence may establish the presence of observable symptomatology and may also be sufficient to support a claim of service connection. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine the probative weight to be assigned among evidence in a case, and to state reasons or bases for favoring one opinion over another. Winsett v. West, 11 Vet. App. 420 (1998). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. If the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the claim must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Here, the Veteran contends that he has PTSD which was caused by his service in Vietnam. A review of the Veteran’s service medical records does not show any complaints of, treatment for, or diagnosis of any psychiatric disorders. On separation examination in 1970, the Veteran’s psychiatric clinical evaluation was normal and the Veteran denied having nervous trouble, excessive worry, frequent or terrifying nightmares, or trouble sleeping. Much of the evidence of record is in the form of statements from the Veteran about his service in Vietnam and specific accounts of combat stressors he experienced during active service. The evidence of record clearly establishes that he served in combat in Vietnam and was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. Accordingly, the Board accepts that the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy during service in Vietnam. However, the preponderance of the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has PTSD. There is no diagnosis of PTSD of record. During a May 2015 VA examination, the Veteran was found not to have a mental disorder that conformed with DSM-5 criteria. The examiner concluded that although the Veteran reported dislike of crowds, insomnia, and avoided Vietnam combat movies, the Veteran did not have from any psychiatric disability under DSM -IV or DSM 5 criteria. There are no private or VA treatment records of records that indicate that the Veteran has ever had a diagnosis of PTSD or any psychiatric disability. Routine VA PTSD screens from June 2007, April 2008, March 2009, September 2009, September 2010, March 2010, January 2013, and March 2014 were all negative for PTSD. In February 2015, 45 years after service, the Veteran began readjustment treatment for “sub-diagnostic” PTSD symptoms including irritability, anxiety, sleeplessness, and anger. The Veteran was not diagnosed with PTSD prior to, during, or after this readjustment treatment. Additionally, the stated purpose of the readjustment treatment program is not specific to aiding Veteran with PTSD. “The focus of this group is to help in-country veterans deal with problems and stressors they encounter in everyday living including war-related difficulties, marital family problems, anger/impulse control, substance abuse, depression, and medical problems. The development of appropriate coping skills is the main focus of the group discussions. Veterans are encouraged to share individual experiences and methods of coping. Peer support, staff intervention, and adequate communications are emphasized as a part of the therapeutic process.” While this counseling may be beneficial to a Veteran with PTSD, simply attending this treatment program does not mean that the Veteran, does in fact, have PTSD. While the Veteran is competent to describe symptoms, such as nightmares related to service experiences, and other feelings like anger or sadness, he is not competent to provide a psychiatric diagnosis, such as PTSD, which requires medical training. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The May 2015 VA examination was based upon a review of the record and thorough interview with the Veteran, and was well-explained. The Board places greater probative weight on the VA examination than on the Veteran’s lay contentions because of the training and expertise of the examiner. There is no contrary competent evidence that shows that the Veteran warrants a diagnosis of PTSD or any other psychiatric disability. In the absence of evidence showing that the Veteran has a current psychiatric disability, service connection cannot be granted. Congress has specifically limited entitlement to service-connected benefits to cases where there is a current disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the competent and probative evidence is against the claim. Therefore, the claim must be denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD E. Mondesir, Law Clerk