Citation Nr: 20004495 Decision Date: 01/21/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 18-02 042 DATE: January 21, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for other unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder was incurred during active service and is related to fellow servicemen attempting to throw him off the ship into the ocean. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from November 1987 to September 1988. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The rating decision denied service connection for other unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder (also claimed as PTSD) due to lack of evidence showing nexus to service. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement in October 2017. VA issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) in November 2017 and recorded the Veteran’s substantive appeal in January 2018. 1. SERVICE CONNECTION Service connection can be granted for any current disability that is the result of a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active duty service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also be granted for a disability diagnosed after discharge, where competent evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in-service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013). The Board recognizes that lay statements and/or testimony are competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection. Barr, 21 Vet. App. at 307; see Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 403 (1995). The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). Lay evidence cannot be found not credible solely due to the lack of contemporaneous medical records. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009). In determining whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may properly consider internal consistency, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the veteran. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995). The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Medical evidence, such as VA examinations, must contain not only clear conclusions with supporting data, but also a reasoned medical explanation connecting the two. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Examiners should consider the Veteran’s contention, the claims file, and clinical medical evidence before providing a negative opinion in each instance. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304. The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009). It is the Board’s responsibility to determine whether a preponderance of the evidence supports the claim or whether the evidence is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether there is a preponderance of evidence against the claim, in which case the claim must be denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When, after careful consideration of all procurable and assembled data, a reasonable doubt arises regarding service origin, the degree of disability, or any other point, such doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant. By reasonable doubt is meant one which exists because of an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence which does not satisfactorily prove or disprove the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Although the Board has an obligation to provide reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no need to discuss, in detail, each piece of evidence of record. The analysis below focuses on the most salient and relevant evidence and what this evidence shows, or fails to show, regarding the Veteran’s claim on appeal. The Veteran must not assume that the Board has overlooked pieces of evidence that are not explicitly discussed herein. See Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000). The Veteran contends that, while he was in the Navy, a group of fellow service crewmembers rushed him and tried to throw him overboard or off the ship into the ocean, resulting in his acquired psychiatric disorder, to include unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder. He provides that where the record lacks evidence of his in-service stressor, such evidence might be found within crew rosters, deck logs and other documents potentially related to the veteran’s claim of a service-connected stressor. The Veteran insists that if the Board is unable to grant service connection based on the current record, a remand for further development is clearly in order. See Appellate Brief, received December 2019. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder. This diagnosis was assigned to the Veteran within the period of appeal. Thus, the element of current diagnosis is met. See C&P Examination, October 2016 The record reflects that the Veteran states that fellow crewmembers of the USS Comte De Grasse rushed him and almost threw him off the ship. The Board finds the Veteran’s statement to be competent and credible and affords the statement significant probative value. This is supported by the fact a March 2015 VA examination shows that the Veteran reported “his symptoms first emerged in 1988 after an incident in the Navy in which several crewmembers tried to throw him overboard while they were at sea. He stated that he and a Lieutenant didn’t get along well and believes the lieutenant put some of the men up to throw him off of the ship.” See C&P Examination, October 2016. Thus, the element of in-service incurrence is met. (Continued on the next page)   Lastly, there is a nexus between the disability and in-service incurrence. During the October 2016 VA examination, the examiner specifically provided that “The Veteran meets full DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for Unspecified Trauma and Stressor-Related Disorder secondary to being ‘rushed’ and almost thrown off the ship by fellow service members while serving aboard the USS Comte De Grasse in 1988.” See C&P Examination, October 2016. This is medical evidence that directly indicates the relationship of the disability with the in-service incurrence. Thus, the nexus element and criteria for service connection of unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder is met. R. FEINBERG Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B.C. Davenport 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.