Citation Nr: A20008763 Decision Date: 05/18/20 Archive Date: 05/18/20 DOCKET NO. 190429-7618 DATE: May 18, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), also claimed as an acquired psychiatric disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his PTSD is at least as likely as not related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304(f)(3). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from June 1974 to June 1978. On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with VA’s decision on their claim to seek review. The Board is honoring the appellant’s choice to participate in VA’s test program RAMP, the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Affairs (Board) on appeal from a June 2018 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2018, the Veteran opted into the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) via the Higher-Level Review lane. The RO issued the RAMP decision in April 2019, after which the Veteran elected the modernized review system via the Evidence Review lane for the appeal to come to the Board, acknowledging that the review of his appeal would be based upon the evidence submitted to VA 90 days after the date of the election. 84 Fed. Reg. 138, 177 (Jan. 18, 2019) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 19.2(d)). 1. Acquired Psychiatric Disorder, and PTSD The Veteran contends that he suffers from PTSD that is a result of his military service. Specifically, he claims that he served as a tunnel rat during the Vietnam War and he was assigned to rescue and evacuate military personnel and diplomate officials. He also contends he was part of a mission to take back the USS Mayaquez in May 1975, as well as he witnessed others be shot at and him be shot at. See June 2018 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a link between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 293 (2013). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). A veteran is entitled to service connection for PTSD when the record before the Secretary contains (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence establishing a linkage between the claimed in-service stressor and the current symptoms of PTSD. See Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 138 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). If the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(2). If a PTSD claim is based on the Veteran’s fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, then the veteran’s lay testimony is sufficient to corroborate the existence of the stressor if (1) a psychiatrist or psychologist “confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and that the veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor”; (2) the psychiatrist or psychologist’s findings are not contradicted by “clear and convincing evidence”; and (3) “the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (3). Here, the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran’s has a current disability, as the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD. See August 2012 VA Medical Record Education Discharge Note. The Veteran was also diagnosed with depression, impulse control disorder and alcohol use disorder. See May 2015 VA Medical Letter. Given such, the first element of Shedden is met. With regard to an in-service event or stressor, credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, the Board finds that as the Veteran is a combat Veteran, as is evidenced by his combat action medal, with a bronze star, his lay testimony alone is sufficient to establish that a stressor occurred. The Board also finds that under the circumstances presented here, the stressors of witnessing others being shot and killed and being shot at are related to a fear of hostile military activity are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his military service while serving in Vietnam. The next step in the analysis is determining whether a VA psychiatrist or psychologist has confirmed that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor. In this regard, pursuant to the December 2014 Disability Benefits Questionnaire Initial Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, a VA psychiatrist diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD related to combat experiences in Vietnam and Cambodia during the Vietnam war. The stressor was also noted as related to the Veteran’s fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. Given such, the Board finds that under the circumstances presented here, it is sufficient upon which to base a determination. In sum, as referenced above, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3), service connection can be granted if the evidence demonstrates a current diagnosis of PTSD (rendered by an examiner specified by the regulation); an in-service stressor consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of service (satisfactorily established by lay testimony) that has been medically related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or one contracted with by VA; and the Veteran's PTSD symptoms have been medically related to the in-service stressor by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or one contracted with by VA. The Board concludes that these criteria have been met in the Veteran's case as he has a current diagnosis of PTSD rendered by a VA psychologist; in-service stressors consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service that have been medically related to his fear of hostile military activity by a VA psychologist; and his PTSD symptoms have been medically related to the in-service stressors by a VA psychologist. Accordingly, entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. YVETTE R. WHITE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Glaeser, 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.