Citation Nr: 18161235 Decision Date: 12/31/18 Archive Date: 12/31/18 DOCKET NO. 15-29 106 DATE: December 31, 2018 ORDER The appeal seeking service connection for bilateral hearing loss is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. At his hearing before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board), the Veteran made an explicit and unambiguous request to withdraw his appeal as to a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, and the request was made with a full understanding of the consequences of withdrawing his claim. 2. The Veteran has a corroborated in-service trauma related to a helicopter crash, a diagnosis of PTSD, and uncontradicted medical evidence establishing a nexus between his diagnosis and the in-service event. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. With respect to the claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, the criteria for withdrawal of an appeal by the Veteran have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2), (d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1989 to October 1993. The Board thanks the Veteran for his service. This matter is before the Board on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision. In December 2018, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran waived consideration by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) for any additionally received evidence. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. At the hearing, the Veteran also requested to withdraw his appeal to a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss. He testified that he had discussed the matter with his representative, and he was advised of the consequences of withdrawing his claim. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. The Board finds that the Veteran’s withdrawal was explicit, unambiguous and done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action. The undersigned asked the Veteran if he had had an opportunity to discuss the withdrawal with his representative. In his representative’s presence, the Veteran again responded “yes.” Additionally, the undersigned specifically discussed consequences of withdrawal with the Veteran, to include the need to file a new claim should the Veteran choose to seek service connection in the future and the fact that any benefits granted as a result of such future claim would likely be effective no earlier than the date of the new (future) claim. Given these circumstances, the Board finds that the Veteran met the requirements necessary for an effective oral withdrawal. See Acree v. O’Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue, and it is dismissed. See Hanson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 29 (1996) (holding that when a claim is withdrawn, it ceases to exist). 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD The Veteran contends that his diagnosed PTSD is a result of experiencing a crash water landing on a helicopter while he was in the Navy, near NAS North Island in November 1991. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following must be shown: (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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), i.e., a diagnosis conforming to specified diagnostic criteria (currently the DSM-5, previously the DSM-IV); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link, or causal nexus, between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Of record are three letters from attending medical providers stating that the Veteran has a PTSD diagnosis, two of which specifically link the diagnosis to the Veteran’s asserted in-service trauma of experiencing a crash landing on the ocean. See Letter from Private Licensed Professional Counselor (J.C.) dated May 2012; Letter from VA Clinical Psychologist (S.P.) dated May 2013; Note from VA Physician (M.R.) dated July 2013. All VA treatment records in the claims file included consistent statements from the Veteran regarding his experience in service, and primarily included diagnoses of PTSD and anxiety disorder NOS. E.g. CAPRI Records dated March 2012 through September 2015. In March 2013 the RO made a formal finding that it was unable to confirm the Veteran’s reported in-service stressor based on research by the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS). The DPRIS response, also dated March 2013, indicated that they were unable to place the Veteran’s unit in the relevant geographic location in November 1991, or to confirm that the reported crash occurred in that location at all, based on the unit’s command history. However, in December 2015 the Veteran submitted the Navy’s response to a FOIA request to obtain information regarding the helicopter incident. The response, dated October 2015, confirms that the Veteran’s unit (noted on his DD Form 213 as his last duty assignment) filed a “hazard report” related to a November 1991 helicopter crash that occurred in the ocean near NAS North Island, California. The response included a copy of the hazard report, which further corroborates details provided by the Veteran. The Board finds that the Navy’s FOIA response corroborates the Veteran’s claimed stressor for purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In sum, the Veteran’s asserted trauma of experiencing fear of death during a helicopter crash has been corroborated, he has a diagnosis of PTSD, and there is uncontradicted medical evidence establishing a nexus between the two. Accordingly, the Board finds that the requirements for service connection for PTSD have been met in this case the claim is granted. The Board additionally   notes that this decision is intended to grant service connection for all psychiatric symptomatology, including that referenced under an anxiety disorder diagnosis in the medical records. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD C. Anderson, Associate Counsel