Citation Nr: 18136804 Decision Date: 09/19/18 Archive Date: 09/19/18 DOCKET NO. 16-19 554 DATE: September 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT PTSD is the result of stressors the Veteran experienced during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connected for PTSD have been satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active service from December 1976 to June 1977. Service Connection Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (2012). Generally, the evidence must show: (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, 391 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). 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 in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). Entitlement to service connection for PTSD. As to the first and third elements of Shedden, there is no dispute. A March 2016 VA examination shows the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD which is the result of his reported assault. The diagnosis conforms to the fifth edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DSM-V). See March 2016 VA Examination for PTSD. As to element two, under Shedden, there is a dispute as to whether there is credibly supporting evidence of the claimed stressor. After careful analysis, the Board finds that the evidence supports the Veteran’s assertions. The Veteran argues his PTSD is the result of being assaulted on board the U.S.S. Constellation, and that he requested early discharge afterward, as a result of the assault. In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted the lay statement of his wife, to whom he was married in 1979, approximately 17 months after his discharge. She attested that the Veteran had nightmares all the years they were married, but he would not say why until about ten years ago. At that time, he told her about the personal things that happened to him, including the assault. See December 2013 Lay Statement of Wife. In addition, VA mental health treatment records reflect the Veteran reported he was assaulted on board Constellation while it was stationed in San Diego, California prior to shipping out to the Philippines. See CAPRI Treatment Records (rec’d 4/13/2013), pp. 4 of 56. The 2016 VA examiner opined that service records did not provide any markers by which it could be determined that the Veteran had incurred an in-service stressor during active service. As to the request for discharge, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran requested a hardship discharge over a year before the averred assault occurred. See March 2016 VA Examination for PTSD, p. 5. However, according to service personnel records (SPRs), the Veteran’s active service lasted less than seven months in total. Therefore, he could not have requested a hardship discharge a year prior to the timeframe in which he averred the assault occurred. In addition, the VA examiner did not discuss the statement of the Veteran’s wife, or the Veteran’s previous descriptions of his stressor to VA health care providers. As the VA examiner’s opinion is based on an inaccurate and incomplete understanding of the evidence, it cannot be of probative value here, at least as it relates to stressor verification. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458 (1993); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). SPRs show that the Veteran entered recruit training in December 1976. He did well, completing all the requirements to advance in paygrade, except having sufficient time-in-rate. He then completed airman apprentice training and was transferred to Constellation in March 1977, reporting aboard March 16. On April 17, 1977, he requested a hardship discharge. His performance marks, dated in June 1977, were 2.8 of 4.0 across the board. Administrative remarks of the same date document an unwillingness to become part of the division to which he was assigned, little to no motivation to complete assigned tasks, disrespectfulness, the desire to be a loner, and preoccupation with getting out of the Navy. See SPRs (rec’d 6/3/2014), pp. 15-17, 27, 46. According the Veteran all reasonable doubt, the Board finds the evidence credibly corroborates the Veteran’s assertions of personal assault. His request for discharge combined with such a marked decrease in performance with observed isolating behavior accompanied by lack of motivation and military bearing within the time frame of the reported assault is indicative of a change in behavior following a personal assault. Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Accordingly, service connection for PTSD is appropriate. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L.J. Bakke, Counsel