Citation Nr: 19166136
Decision Date: 08/27/19	Archive Date: 08/27/19

DOCKET NO. 17-50 781
DATE: August 27, 2019

ORDER

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, including posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) claimed as due to military sexual trauma (MST), is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder (including PTSD), by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) psychologist; she has provided competent and credible lay statements concerning the MST that occurred during a period of active duty service [she reported that her MST occurred in late 1983 but her military personnel records indicate she was assigned to the reported location of the incident in late 1982]; and her reported MST is corroborated by a deterioration of work performance demonstrated by her missing scheduled drills and negative counseling reports. [A February 2017 negative VA opinion was based on the assumption that the MST occurred in late 1983, per the confusion noted above regarding dates, and this timing did not align with her decline in work performance, however, her personnel records show she was stationed in that duty location in late 1982 which does correlate with her decline in performance]. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, including PTSD, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from August 1982 to February 1983. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2017 rating decision by the VA Regional Office. Due to evidence of financial hardship and homelessness raised by the record, the Board finds that good cause exists for this case to be expedited; therefore, the case has been advanced on the docket.

The Veteran has been diagnosed with more than one mental health condition, including PTSD and depressive disorders. To provide the broadest and most sympathetic review, the claims has been recharacterized to include any acquired psychiatric disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009).

The Board notes that the record includes a June 2017 statement from the Veteran suggesting that she wished to withdraw the claim. However, the context in which this was submitted (as part of a group of documents faxed together) and the fact that the Veteran continued to pursue the appeal by subsequently submitting additional evidence, leads the Board to conclude that this purported withdrawal was submitted in error.

[CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE]

For the reasons explained above, the appeal is granted.

 

 

VICTORIA MOSHIASHWILI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	David Arritt, Associate Counsel

The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.