Citation Nr: 18156001 Decision Date: 12/06/18 Archive Date: 12/06/18 DOCKET NO. 14-41 744 DATE: December 6, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has PTSD due to an in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304(f). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to August 1975. This matter came to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has not been associated with the claims file; however, the Board finds it is not necessary for a decision on the claim. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). There are particular requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) that are separate from those for establishing service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Service connection for PTSD generally requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with applicable criteria; (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 (f). If 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. VA may submit any evidence that it receives to an appropriate medical or mental health professional for an opinion as to whether it indicates that a personal assault occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5). The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for VA benefits is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). Under that provision, VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Veteran asserts that he has PTSD that is related to an in-service stressor. Specifically, he reports that in September 1974, while serving in the Marines, he and Master Gunnery Sergeant A.S. were driving from Parris Island to Savannah, Georgia, when they were pulled over by two state troopers. The officers informed both soldiers that they were looking for escaped convicts, and one of them held an armed shotgun to the Veteran’s face while the other held a revolver to A.S. The officers searched the car and the soldiers, and then let them go. The Veteran stated that he reported the incident to his senior drill instructor who dismissed the incident. For the following reasons, service connection for PTSD disorder is warranted. In this case, the evidence of record demonstrates that the requirement of a current disability has been met. Specifically, VA clinical records show that the Veteran has been consistently diagnosed as having PTSD since July 2012. Thus, the first element of service connection has been met with regard to PTSD. In addition, there is competent medical evidence linking the Veteran’s diagnosed PTSD to an in-service stressor. VA treatment records in February 2013 document the 1974 incident with the state troopers and diagnosed PTSD. Likewise, VA treatment records in January 2015 reflect PTSD linked to military experience, specifically the 1974 incident. A February 2015 neuropsychologist noted that medical records indicated that the Veteran had been diagnosed with PTSD stemming from an event of racial aggression in 1974. Further a July 2018 VA treatment record reflects that the Veteran was a non-combat but he had severe trauma from a racially motivated incident with the police in 1974, and diagnosed PTSD. Based on this evidence, the requirement of a link between the Veteran’s psychiatric disorder and in-service stressor has been met. The final issue to address with regard to PTSD is whether there is credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. In this case the Veteran’s service treatment records and military personnel records do not contain evidence of the 1974 encounter with the state troopers. However, the Veteran submitted a statement from Master Gunnery Sergeant A.S., who was in the car with him at the time of the incident, describing the encounter in detail. In addition, the Veteran explained that he suppressed his trauma until 2012, at which time he accompanied his spouse to her PTSD evaluation and realized he also experienced PTSD symptoms. The medical record corroborates the Veteran’s statements. The Board notes that 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) only requires “credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred,” and does not exclude lay statements. To the contrary, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5), a PTSD claim based on in-service personal assault, such as the one here, may be corroborated with statements from family and friends. Thus, the Veteran’s Master Gunnery Sergeant A.S.’s statements are credible supporting evidence that the Veteran suffered a personal assault during active duty. (Continued on the next page)   Given the evidence of record showing a diagnosis of PTSD based on credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred, entitlement to service connection for PTSD is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. Leifert, Associate Counsel