Citation Nr: 18136795 Decision Date: 09/19/18 Archive Date: 09/19/18 DOCKET NO. 15-17 526 DATE: September 19, 2018 ORDER Service connection for sterility due to radiation exposure is dismissed. Service connection for polycythemia due to radiation exposure is dismissed. A rating higher than percent for residuals of an exploratory laparotomy with scar is dismissed. Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. A rating higher than 10 percent for conversion type hysterical neurosis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. During his May 2018 hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for service connection for sterility due to radiation exposure. 2. During his May 2018 hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for service connection for polycythemia due to radiation exposure. 3. During his May 2018 hearing, the Veteran withdrew his claim for a compensable rating for residuals of an exploratory laparotomy with scar. 4. PTSD is etiologically related to a credible in-service stressor. 5. The Veteran’s conversion type hysterical neurosis is asymptomatic and managed by medication. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a withdrawal of the claim for service connection for sterility due to radiation exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 2. The criteria for a withdrawal of the claim for service connection for polycythemia due to radiation exposure have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 3. The criteria for a withdrawal of the claim for a compensable rating for residuals of an exploratory laparotomy with scar have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. 4. The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. 3.303, 3.304. 5. The criteria for a rating higher than 10 percent for conversion type hysterical neurosis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.2, 4.7, 4.130. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Navy from June 1971 to December 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing in May 2018. Dismissed Claims 1. Service connection for sterility due to radiation exposure 2. Service connection for polycythemia due to radiation exposure 3. A compensable rating for residuals of an exploratory laparotomy with scar Under 38 U.S.C. 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. 20.202. Prior to the promulgation of a decision in this case, the Veteran stated his intent to withdraw his appeal for the above-listed issues from consideration by the Board on the record at his May 2018 hearing. Therefore, a “case or controversy” involving a pending adverse determination that the Veteran has taken exception to does not currently exist with respect to these issues. See Shoen v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 456, 457 (1994). Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal for these claims, and they are dismissed. Service Connection 4. Service connection for PTSD There are requirements for establishing entitlement to service connection for PTSD in 38 C.F.R. 3.304(f) that are in ways similar, but nonetheless separate, from those for establishing entitlement to service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Entitlement to service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. 4.125 (a); (2) credible supporting evidence that a claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and the in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. 3.304(f) and 4.125. VA treatment records show the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD by a VA psychologist in March 2011. Symptoms of PTSD included nightmares associated, in part, with an episode aboard a submarine in which the Veteran almost died, and with other experiences associated with being in special operations. These records establish a current diagnosis and a link to an in-service stressor. However, as noted above, credible evidence of the in-service stressor is still required. Through various written statements, treatment records, and hearing testimony, the Veteran described being aboard the submarine U.S.S. George C. Marshall, SSBN-654, during the summer of 1975. During this time, he contends that the submarine was involved in an incident during which it descended to its physical crush depth before recovering. He described how the frame was damaged from the pressure and how he feared for his life. The Veteran’s service records show he was aboard this submarine. However, verifying this claimed stressor presents unique challenges. The Veteran has undertaken efforts to obtain information showing that this incident occurred. His efforts generated a letter from the Director of Naval History and Heritage Command to the Veteran’s U.S. Senator. The Director states that the deck logs and patrol reports for the U.S.S. George C. Marshall were initially highly classified, and later combined on storage media with other sensitive information as part of a now-closed submarine detection vulnerability analysis program at the Office of Naval Intelligence. As a result, only individuals with critical security clearances could review the media for any relevant information, and such a review involved searching up to 200,000 pages of data on 40-year old microfilm. In support of his claim, the Veteran also submitted comments from a social media group of U.S.S. George C. Marshall alumni which generally, albeit vaguely, support the occurrence of the incident in question. Having reviewed the limited available evidence and taken the Veteran’s testimony, the Board will resolve any doubt in his favor and find his account of the event in question to be credible for the limited purpose of establishing this claim. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995) (holding the Board has a duty to ascertain the credibility of testimony put before it and may consider facial plausibility and demeanor of a witness, among other factors, when weighing credibility). Increased Rating 5. A rating higher than 10 percent for conversion type hysterical neurosis Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities. The percentage ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity and individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Any reasonable doubt regarding a degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, present level of disability is the primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). The Veteran is currently assigned a 10 percent rating for conversion type hysterical neurosis under Diagnostic Code (DC) 9402. Historically, he was granted service connection for this disability in a May 1978 rating decision based on continued complaints of abdominal pain without organic pathology being present. DC 9402 no longer exists under the current rating schedule. However, all mental disorders, including conversion disorder under DC 9424, are rated under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Under that formula, a 10 percent rating is assigned when there is occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and the ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or when symptoms are controlled with continuous medication. The Board finds that this 10 percent rating is appropriate. The Veteran had a VA examination in August 2013, and the examiner stated that the conversion disorder was in remission and asymptomatic at the time of the evaluation. He further stated that the Veteran had a separate diagnosis of major depressive disorder which accounted for all his symptoms. This is consistent with the Veteran’s VA treatment records, which show ongoing mental health treatment for diagnoses of major depressive disorder and anxiety not otherwise specified, with no reference to conversion disorder. Similarly, during the Veteran’s June 2017 VA examination, he reported that he had not experienced abdominal pain or stomach cramps since being put on an anti-depressant in 2004 or 2006. The examiner stated this meant there were no further symptoms of conversion disorder. The criteria for a higher 30 percent rating under the General Rating Formula include symptoms such as depressed mood, panic attacks, anxiety, sleep impairment, and mild memory loss resulting in occasional decreases in work efficiency. The evidence shows that the Veteran’s conversion type hysterical neurosis is controlled with medication and does not result in any symptomatology. To the extent that the Veteran does experience the above symptoms, they have specifically been attributed to psychiatric conditions other than his conversion disorder. Therefore, the higher rating is not warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (the use of manifestations not resulting from service-connected disease in establishing the service-connected evaluation is to be avoided). M. TENNER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Shamil Patel, Counsel