Citation Nr: 20041065 Decision Date: 06/16/20 Archive Date: 06/16/20 DOCKET NO. 17-06 141 DATE: June 16, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Posttraumatic stress disorder is as likely as not attributable to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110 (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.303(f) (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Navy from May 1982 to May 1987. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for PTSD. Service connection may be established for disability resulting from personal injury sustained or disease contracted in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(d). There are particular requirements for establishing PTSD in accordance with 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). In order to warrant service connection for PTSD there must be: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between the current symptoms and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for PTSD is warranted. In this regard, the Veteran reports that during service, while aboard the U.S. Kitty, he witnessed the death of a service member who was involved in a jet accident. He reports another incident in the Philippines in which a soldier was shot behind him. He further reports a stressor in which he was involved in a collision with a Russian submarine in the Sea of Japan. According to the Veteran, he continues to have nightmares of the Russians blowing up their ship in retaliation. The 1984 command history confirms that the U.S. Kitty Hawk collided with a Russian submarine as detailed by the Veteran. There is also sufficient evidence of record which shows that the Veteran’s service mate was killed on the flight deck of the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk during night flight operations as recalled by the Veteran. In October 2015, private examiner, T. L, Psy. D., noted that the Veteran served aboard the U.S. Kitty Hawk during the Persian Gulf War and that he was aboard a missile frigate during Desert Storm. It was noted that the Veteran recalled colliding with a submarine and having enemy MIGs flying overhead. It was noted that he further recalled watching a friend on the flight deck being sucked into the jet engine and that he witnessed a Filipino being shot in the head. PTSD was diagnosed. In a November 2017 outpatient treatment record, it was noted that the Veteran witnessed an accident in which another sailor was killed. PTSD was diagnosed. The examiner found that the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms were consistent with viewing this accident. In this case, the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 and he has presented credible evidence of stressors that include watching a fellow solider die in a jet engine accident and the stressor of colliding with a Russian submarine in service. Furthermore, a VA examiner has linked at least one of his stressors to his current symptoms. The law does not require the corroboration of every detail of a stressor, but only independent evidence sufficient to imply personal exposure and personal presence at the time of the alleged stressor. Pentecost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128 (2002); Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307, 311 (1997). As there is enough evidence to place the Veteran on site when the soldier was killed in the jet accident and during the submarine collision, the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the favor of the Veteran and grants the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The adequacy of stressor to be productive of PTSD is a medical determination, which has been favorably made in this case. See Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) (“By requiring only an ‘approximate balance of positive and negative evidence’..., the nation, ‘in recognition of our debt to our veterans,’ has ‘taken upon itself the risk of error’ in awarding... benefits.”) T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T.S. Willie 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.