Citation Nr: 18158274 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 16-56 272 DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to personal assault is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. 2. Medical evidence corroborates the Veteran’s account of stressor incidents based on in-service personal assault, including several incidents of physical assault due to hazing. 3. The Veteran’s PTSD is related to the in-service stressor. 4. PTSD is related to the service connected depressive disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from March 1993 to March 1997. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Oakland, California. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to personal assault The Veteran contends that he has PTSD due to personal assault as well as other incidents he experienced in service. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that was caused by in-service personal assaults. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Service connection is therefore warranted. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition 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) (2017). If a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than a veteran’s service records may corroborate the veteran’s account of the stressor incident. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5) (2017). Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. Id. An after-the-fact medical opinion can also serve as a basis for corroborating an in-service personal assault. Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 277 (1999). Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Examples of behavior changes that may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include, but are not limited to: a request for a transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes. Id. Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability which is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) proximately caused by or (b) proximately aggravated by a service-connected disability. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439, 448 (1995). In the present case, the Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. VA treatment records and private treatment records document a diagnosis of PTSD due to personal assault during service. The Veteran’s claimed stressors include being physically assaulted and hazed during a deployment aboard the USS Carl Vinson in 1994. The Veteran also reported five separate episodes where he was assaulted in 1995 and 1996 while stationed at Naval Air Station Lemoore. The Veteran submitted a statement in November 2017 asserting that while on active duty he experienced hazing and bullying from his fellow sailors as well as a near-fatal flight deck accident. He stated that during training at the Naval Air Technical Training Center in Millington, Tennessee he was singled out for verbal harassment by a class leader. The Veteran also reported that he was physically assaulted and “dogpiled” by his peers while working in an avionics technician shop while on deployment in 1994 aboard the USS Carl Vinson. A December 2017 DBQ completed by a VA examiner noted that the Veteran’s claim of military related PTSD is supported by his statement in support of claim and by one possible performance marker and that his PTSD is “at least as likely as not” due to his service connected depressive disorder. The examiner noted multiple consistent PTSD diagnoses by the Veteran’s treating providers at the VA. The Board acknowledges that at an August 2016 VA examination the Veteran was found not to meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD due to a lack of corroborating documentation. However, this was prior to the December 2017 diagnosis. It is possible that the PTSD criteria were not met in 2016 but were in 2017. Therefore, the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran has PTSD related to his military service, and service connection is warranted. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Baronofsky Associate Counsel