Citation Nr: 20008148 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 17-55 597 DATE: January 30, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a nightmare disorder, but no other acquired psychiatric disorder, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran served in the Persian Gulf region/North Arabian Sea in September 2001. 2. The Veteran does not have a competent and credible diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and/or anxiety disorder; however, he has a competent and credible diagnosis of a nightmare disorder. 3. Moreover, it is just as likely as not the Veteran’s nightmare disorder is the result of his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the criteria are met for entitlement to service connection for a nightmare disorder, but not for any other acquired psychiatric disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Entitlement to service connection for a nightmare disorder In general, establishing service connection requires medical evidence or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of the following: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a relevant disease or an injury; and (3) a nexus between the disease or injury in service and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran contends that he has a nightmare disorder because of his service. The Veteran served from March 2000 to March 2004. His DD Form 214 indicates he had three years of sea service, including duty aboard the USS Comstock (LSD 45). His service treatment records (STRs) are unremarkable for complaints of nightmares and, after separating from service, he denied having nightmares during VA questioning (e.g., in August 2004, December 2008.) A September 2015 PsyCare record, however, reflects that he reported chronic nightmares since 2006, so nearly dating back to when he was in service. In a May 2014 Statement in Support of Claim (on VA Form 21-4138), the Veteran indicated that, during his first deployment, his commanding officer informed the crew that they were potentially at war due to the incidents that had occurred in New York City on September 11, 2001, when the World Trade Center was attacked and destroyed. He also reported that there were several incidents during which Dhows (small sailing vessels) threated to ram his ship and blow it up. He contends those incidents occurred in the (Persian) Gulf and the Straits of Hormuz. (See also June 2016 statement.) On a May 2015 VA Form 21-4138, he conceded that no actual attacks occurred, but he contends the ship was “threatened on a routine basis”, so the potential of harm or even death was always there. A 2003 evaluation report and counseling record in service confirms his duties contributed to a successful deployment to the Arabian Gulf in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom.   A Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) electronic message indicates the USS Comstock conducted a Western Pacific/Arabian Gulf deployment during the period from August 13 to December 31, 2001, and was again underway in the Indian Ocean/Persian Gulf/North Arabian Sea in October and November 2001. It was also moored at Bahrain in October and November 2001. The DPRIS report concedes history and deck logs do not document Dhow/false chemical alarms as described by the Veteran. An August 2014 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) contains the opinion of the examiner that the Veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD or anxiety disorder but that he meets the criteria for a nightmare disorder. The examiner found that this nightmare disorder was a residual of the Veteran’s service. The Veteran had reported to the examiner that he gets nightmares/dreams about his stressful circumstances while deployed on a ship. He described an incident in particular when there was a false alarm of a chemical attack, and that Dhows (sailing ships) were frequently threatening attack just after 9/11. The Veteran gave credible testimony concerning his service during his recent December 2019 hearing before the Board, including that, while in service, there was a false chemical alarm and he did not initially have a protective gas mask, and that he has recurring nightmares.   Despite the lack of full corroboration by DPRIS, the Board finds that the Veteran’s allegations are credible based on his time of service and place of service. In the absence of a clinical opinion indicating he does not meet the criteria for a nightmare disorder owing to his service, the Board finds that service connection is warranted because of his competent and credible (therefore ultimately probative) written and oral testimony concerning what occurred during his service and the favorable August 2014 DBQ containing the required medical nexus opinion etiologically linking his nightmare disorder to his service. KEITH W. ALLEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Wishard 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.