Citation Nr: 20006469 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 16-48 345 DATE: January 28, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT A VA psychiatrist has found that the Veteran’s claimed stressor of exposure to hostile military or terrorist activity during service is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis and, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder and PTSD are etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from September 1980 to September 1983. This matter comes to the Board on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York. The RO denied service connection for PTSD. The Veteran testified at a Board video conference hearing before the undersigned Veteran’s Law Judge (VLJ) in August 2019. A transcript of the proceeding is of record. The Board notes that the Veteran’s attorney has requested the Board to take jurisdiction of a claim of entitlement to TDIU. The issue before the Board involves service connection and not an increased rating, and the issue of TDIU has not been separately appealed. As such, the Board has no jurisdiction over a claim of entitlement to TDIU at this time. See generally Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009) (holding that TDIU may be considered a component of an increased rating claim). 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD The Veteran asserts that he has a current PTSD diagnosis that relates to the high level of stress associated with guarding a top-secret nuclear sight. In particular, the Veteran describes an event where he was providing security for nuclear weapons specialists as they performed their maintenance and repairs. One of the workers removed his own hood and was exposed to high levels of radiation, which caused an immediate medical evacuation. The Veteran claims he was also exposed to high levels of radiation and was immediately provided protective measures. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 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 claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). If a stressor claimed by a Veteran is related to his or her fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis and that the Veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, then in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3). Otherwise, the law requires verification of a claimed stressor. Where a determination is made that the Veteran did not “engage in combat with the enemy,” or the claimed stressor is unrelated to combat, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone will not be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996). In such cases, the record must include service records or other credible evidence that supports and does not contradict the Veteran’s testimony. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 289 (1994). Moreover, a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD does not suffice to verify the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressors. See Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 395-396. An August 2016 compensation and pension (C&P) note states that the Veteran’s reported symptoms are consistent with generalized anxiety disorder and are enough to be diagnosed as such; therefore, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of generalized anxiety disorder. During service, the Veteran was seen for complaints of depression and anxiety due to his inability to adjust to the Army. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disability is related to service. On this question there are probative opinions in favor of and against the claim. The evidence against the claim includes an August 2016 opinion from the VA examiner who diagnosed the Veteran’s symptoms as generalized anxiety disorder. The examiner states that the current symptoms of anxiety are less likely than not related to the Veteran’s military service because the Veteran reports current psychosocial stressors, such as work- and relationship-related stressors. The examiner also notes that the Veteran underwent a full psychiatric evaluation in service that concluded there was no evidence of any mental disorder and returned the Veteran to duty. Further, the Veteran did not begin to seek treatment until 2012, nearly 30 years after separation. The evidence in favor of the claim includes a February 2015 mental health treatment note from a VA psychiatrist who opines that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms are at least as likely as not secondary to traumatic experiences during his military service. The examiner specifically considered stressors associated with guarding a nuclear test site and he reviewed personnel records showing that the Veteran had been temporarily disqualified from his military policeman duties guarding a nuclear weapons site. Thus, the record contains an assessment by a VA psychiatrist that the Veteran’s claimed stressor of exposure to hostile military or terrorist activity during service is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis. In an April 2018 mental health treatment note, a VA attending physician opines that it is clear from the Veteran’s description of symptoms as well as documentation reviewed at the appointment that a significant portion of the Veteran’s anxiety problems stem from his experiences in the military. In his rationale, the VA physician cites to a psychiatry outpatient note from a VA staff psychiatrist in November 2015 that states that it is likely that the Veteran developed significant anxiety symptoms while in military service. This psychiatrist based his opinion on the fact that the Veteran had to pass significant psychological testing prior to his assignment to participate in nuclear duty and subsequently developed an anxiety state secondary to the inability to adjust to the Army as reported on an April 1981 report of medical examination. While the Veteran’s anxiety state in service was further characterized as temporary situational anxiety, the Veteran then began to experience difficulties participating in the nuclear duty that he was previously cleared for. In December 1982, the Veteran was permanently disqualified from performing his nuclear duties for negligence or delinquency in performance of duty, which the Veteran reports was due to his anxiety. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s currently acquired psychiatric disorders, to include PTSD, are related to service. The positive evidence includes rationale specifically citing to service events wherein the Veteran was noted to suffer from anxiety state and was reassigned from his duties. While the stressor events are not officially corroborated, a VA psychiatrist opined that the Veteran’s claimed stressor of exposure to hostile military or terrorist activity during service is adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis. The Board finds no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Boyea, Law Clerk 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.