Citation Nr: 20005477 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/22/20 DOCKET NO. 15-34 129 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as anxiety disorder, is granted. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1969 to April 1972. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a May 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey. In that decision, the RO denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran contends that he currently has an acquired psychiatric disorder, specifically PTSD, that is caused by difficulties that he had during his military service. However, a claim should not be limited to the disorder as characterized by the Veteran but must be characterized and addressed based on the reasonable expectations of the non-expert claimant and the evidence in processing the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 4-5 (2009). The RO properly characterized the claim as entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder to include PTSD. There are particular requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) that are separate from those for establishing service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). 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 claimed in-service stressor occurred. Kays v. Snyder, 846 F.3d 1208, 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The Veteran’s claimed stressor was an incident that occurred while the Veteran was stationed in Germany involving an artillery simulator attack. The agency of original jurisdiction was unable to verify the stressor. However, the Veteran has been diagnosed with anxiety disorder, including in a February 2007 VA mental health note prepared by a psychiatrist. Service connection for disabilities other than PTSD is warranted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). There is no independent corroboration requirement for the in-service disease or injury requirement with regard to a service connection claim for a disability other than PTSD. In February 2013, the Veteran submitted a private PTSD disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) prepared by a psychologist. The psychologist diagnosed PTSD, noted the Veteran’s sleep apnea diagnosis and noted that the Veteran suffers from anxiety and has many personality conflicts. The psychologist noted that the Veteran reported being very stressed from adverse circumstances during his military service. The psychologist remarked that the Veteran appears to have been confronted with events in which he was exposed to traumatic experiences that precipitated intense fear and horror on his part, currently the residuals of this event appear to be persistently reexperienced with recurrent and distressing recollections, such as in cues that resemble and symbolize an aspect of the traumatic event, where possible the Veteran seeks to avoid such cues and recollections, where they cannot be anticipated and actively avoided, as in dreams or nightmares, the Veteran becomes terrified, exhibiting a number of symptoms of intense anxiety, other signs of distress include difficulty falling sleep, outbursts of anger, panic attacks, hypervigilance, and a subjective sense of numbing and detachment. The evidence also includes two buddy statements, dated April and June 2014, confirming the artillery simulator event described by the Veteran. Thus, there is evidence of an anxiety disorder diagnosis and a finding by a psychologist that the Veteran’s current psychiatric symptoms are due to the in-service events described, which are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service as demonstrated by his personnel records showing service in Germany during the relevant time period. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (each disabling condition for which a veteran seeks service connection must be considered based on factors including the basis of places, types, and circumstances of service as shown by service records). There is no contrary medical opinion in the evidence of record. For the foregoing reasons, the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran has anxiety disorder that is related to service, to include the artillery simulator attack described by the Veteran and two fellow servicemen. As the reasonable doubt created by this relative equipoise in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder diagnosed as anxiety disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board notes that the issue on appeal has previously been characterized as entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability, including PTSD. However, given that there is no indication that there are psychiatric symptoms clearly attributable to a psychiatric disorder other than anxiety disorder for which service connection is being granted, further discussion of PTSD or any other psychiatric disorder is unnecessary. See Howell v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 535, 540 (2006) (explaining that the Secretary must apply the benefit of the doubt doctrine and attribute the inseparable effects of a disability to the claimant’s service-connected disability); Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181, 182 (1998) (when it is not possible to separate the effects of the service-connected and non-service-connected disabilities, the benefit of the doubt doctrine described in 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 dictates that such signs and symptoms be attributed to the service-connected disability or disabilities); see also Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (considering the possibility that bipolar disorder and PTSD did not constitute the same disability, but rejecting this argument based on the facts of that case). Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Frazier, 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.