Citation Nr: 18100985 Decision Date: 04/25/18 Archive Date: 04/25/18 DOCKET NO. 14-32 721 DATE: April 25, 2018 ISSUES DECIDED: 0 ISSUES REMANDED: 1 REMANDED ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include anxiety and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran was denied service connection in an April 2014 rating decision by the VA Regional Office (RO) in Wilmington, Delaware in April 2014. The Veteran served on active duty from October 1973 to August 1977. The Veteran asserts that her current psychiatric disorders are the result of inservice sexual assaults and harassment. In this regard, the record reflects that she has identified incidents of military sexual trauma (MST), to include assaults by Sergeant F.H. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that F.H. asked her, “when you gonna give me some.” She further stated that he pinched her, and in a separate instance, he cornered her in his office and tried to kiss her but she pushed him away. The Veteran indicated that these incidents continued during her entire time in her assigned unit. She also reported that she has experienced anxiety since these in-service incidents. Post-service treatment records demonstrate that the Veteran sought treatment for anxiety several times in 1990. In the most recent September 2013 private treatment record, the Veteran’s private physician, M.S., indicated that she had been taking Zoloft for her anxiety since 2009. In addition, the Veteran’s statements consistently indicate that she experienced feelings of anxiety since active service. While the Veteran’s post-service medical records show a history of anxiety and reported MST, her service personnel records and service treatment records do not include a psychiatric diagnosis. The service personnel records dated in June 1975, however, do show that she encountered difficulties in her job performance, as her commanding officer indicated that most test ratings show low or very low results and he recommended methods for improvements. Such records do not reflect any disciplinary actions. The Board notes that a claimant’s assertions concerning in-service sexual trauma are not sufficient to establish that the sexual trauma occurred. There must be corroborating evidence of the sexual trauma. However, it is also recognized that the present case falls within the category of situations in which it is not unusual for there to be an absence of service records documenting the events of which the Veteran alleges. See, e.g. Patton v. West, 12, Vet. App. 272 (1999). Moreover, the Veteran is competent to describe his in-service experiences. See Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (addressing lay evidence as potentially competent to support presence of disability even where not corroborated by contemporaneous medical evidence). In any event, the Board acknowledges that the relevant regulation stipulates that if PTSD is based on an in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than a Veteran's service records may corroborate his or her account of the stressor incident. Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be used to corroborate the stressor. In addition, 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (5) (2017). In light of the above, it would be inappropriate to deny the Veteran's claim at this point in time. Specifically, the medical evidence of record does not include a definitive opinion that takes into account all of the evidence, to include the Veteran's service records and post-service records, in determining whether the Veteran's alleged in-service stressors occurred and whether the Veteran's current psychiatric disorder(s) is related to such stressors. Thus, the Veteran must be afforded a VA examination so that a medical opinion with supporting rationale can be obtained in this regard. The matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Attempt to corroborate the Veteran’s in-service stressor based on personal assault, including the claimed MST’s, to include assaults by Sergeant F.H. Specifically, harassing comments, unwanted touches, and an instance when the Veteran was cornered her in F.H.’s office, and he tried to kiss her but she pushed him away. The Veteran indicated that these incidents continued during her entire time in the unit. If more details are needed, contact the Veteran to request the information. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and anxiety. If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, the examiner must explain how the diagnostic criteria are met and opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to a verified in-service stressor. The examiner must opine whether the evidence of record, including the Veteran’s lay statements, and the Veteran’s service records, corroborate the claim that a personal assault occurred in service (38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (5)). If the examiner finds that evidence indicates that a personal assault occurred during the Veteran’s active service, the examiner must opine whether any PTSD is at least as likely as not related to the in-service personal assault. If any other acquired psychiatric disorders are diagnosed, to include anxiety, the examiner must opine whether each diagnosed disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner should consider all relevant evidence of record and provide comprehensive rationale for any opinion proffered. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, the examiner shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. 3. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal are not granted to the Veteran’s satisfaction, she and her representative should be provided a supplemental statement of the case and an appropriate period of time for response before the case is returned to the Board for further appellate action. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Sara Schinnerer, Counsel