Citation Nr: 20021649 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 18-31 296 DATE: March 26, 2020 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Service connection for heart attacks is denied. REMANDED Service connection for panic disorder is remanded. Service connection for rheumatoid arthritis is remanded. Service connection for a back condition is remanded. Service connection for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s claimed in-service stressors have not been corroborated; and any current diagnosis of PTSD is not based on a verified stressor. 2. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that heart attacks began during active service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 2. The criteria for service connection for heart attack are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from October 1973 to November 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in North Little Rock, Arkansas. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. To establish service connection for a disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). PTSD Entitlement to service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that a claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(f), 4.125. The Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate that he has a diagnosis of PTSD. However, the claims file lacks any evidence of a verified stressor. The Veteran submitted two statements in April 2012 and one in March 2013 stating that he cannot discuss the circumstances of his stressor due to a promise he made in return for an honorable discharge. Due to the Veteran not providing information on a claimed stressor, VA cannot perform the necessary development in order to support that the claimed stressor occurred. As such, the claim must be denied. The Board has considered whether the Veteran’s PTSD is related to one of the exceptions that allows for lay testimony or other sources to support that the claimed stressor occurred. At his DRO hearing, the Veteran testified that when he reported aboard the U.S.S. Sellers he was harassed by an officer. However, no testimony was given that suggests there was a personal assault, and as such, the exception for verifying a PTSD stressor based on an in-service personal assault does not apply. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). The Board has considered if any of the other lay evidence exceptions apply to the Veteran’s claim. His service records do not indicate that the Veteran saw combat, was a prisoner of war, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the Veteran or others. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(2)-(4). As such, lay evidence is not available to verify any claimed stressors. At his May 2017 DRO hearing, the Veteran testified that his stressors would appear in his VA mental health records. The Board has reviewed the Veteran’s VA mental health records and he does not mention any stressor incidents. As such, service connection for PTSD must be denied because there is no evidence that any current PTSD diagnosis is related to any stressors that occurred during the Veteran’s service. The Veteran has not provided any stressors and his claims file contains no evidence of a stressor. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against this claim and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, service connection for PTSD is denied. Heart Attack The Veteran contends that his post-service heart attacks are related to his military service. The claims file contains no evidence of an in-service incident that may have caused his post-service heart attacks. The Veteran suffered a heart attack in December 2008. However, the claims file lacks evidence of an in-service incident that may have caused the Veteran’s heart attack. On the Veteran’s release exam all of his systems are marked normal except for an appendix scar. The Veteran’s service records do not contain any reports of heart problems or symptoms that would be evidence of a heart condition. The Veteran also has not raised any contentions of an in-service incident that may be the cause of his heart attack. As such, the Board cannot find that there was an in-service incident that may have caused the Veteran’s heart attacks. Though the Veteran was not provided with a VA examination for this claim, the Board finds that one is not warranted. VA is obligated to provide an examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) evidence establishes that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service; (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with a veteran’s service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) insufficient competent evidence to decide the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). As stated above, there is no competent evidence of an in-service event, injury, or disease that occurred in service or indication that any in-service event, injury, or disease may be associated with the Veteran’s heart attack. The Veteran also is not alleging that his heart attack is related to another service-connected disability or a disability that he is currently seeking service-connection. As such, McLendon does not apply and VA is not obligated to obtain an examination for the Veteran’s heart attack claim. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against this claim and the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. As such, service connection for heart attacks is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Panic Disorder Along with claiming service connection for PTSD, the Veteran is also claiming service connection for panic disorder. In February 2013, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. The VA examiner stated that the Veteran does not have a diagnosed mental disorder, but also concluded that the Veteran was receiving treatment for panic disorder, and it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s panic disorder was related to service. This factual inconsistency calls into question the accuracy of the VA examination and the Board finds the VA examination to be inadequate. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain a new VA examination. Rheumatoid Arthritis The Veteran provided an April 2012 statement that his right knee locked up during training. At his May 2017 DRO hearing, the Veteran raised a contention that this incident may be related to his current diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis. The Veteran has not been provided a VA examination regarding his claim for service connection for rheumatoid arthritis. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination. Back At his May 2017 DRO hearing the Veteran testified that he injured his back while offloading ammo, passing out and regaining consciousness under a bed. He testified that he did not seek medical help for this back injury. The Board finds this testimony to be credible. A VA examination has not been provided for the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a back condition. As such, a remand is necessary to obtain a VA examination. COPD The Veteran contends that his COPD is related to exposure to asbestos during his service. The Veteran testified during his May 2017 DRO hearing that he was exposed to asbestos while aboard the U.S.S. Sellers. VA is obligated to provide an examination when there is competent evidence of a current disability, evidence of an in-service event, an indication that the disability may be related to the in-service event, and insufficient competent evidence to decide the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The Veteran is competent to describe the circumstances of his service, and the Board finds his contention to be credible. As such, a VA examination must be provided, and a remand is necessary. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s panic disorder. The claims file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner must opine with complete rationale whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s panic disorder is related to his service. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s rheumatoid arthritis. The claims file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner must opine with complete rationale whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s rheumatoid arthritis is related to his service. 3. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s back condition. The claims file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner must opine with complete rationale whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s back condition is related to his service. 4. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s COPD. The claims file should be made available to the examiner. The examiner must opine with complete rationale whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater) that the Veteran’s COPD is related to asbestos exposure. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Michael Chandeck, 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.