Citation Nr: 20043767 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 17-05 512A DATE: June 29, 2020 ORDER Reopening the claim for service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is warranted. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. New and material evidence was received after the March 2013 denial sufficient to reopen the claim of service connection for PTSD. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his PTSD is at least as likely as not related to active duty combat service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for reopening the claim for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38C.F.R. §3.156 (a). 2. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from July 1980 to July 1983 and February 1987 to October 1991 in the United States Army, to include active duty service in the Gulf War Era. He testified at a June 2019 hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of that hearing is associated with the record. NEW AND MATERIAL EVIDENCE Whether new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD. A March 2013 rating decision reopened a previously denied claim of service connection for PTSD, but denied the claim on the merits. The Veteran did not perfect an appeal from that decision and no new and material evidence was received within a year of the rating decision; the decision became final. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b). The claim was previously denied because there was no evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD. The question before the Board is whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim. Since the prior final decision, the Veteran provided competent sworn testimony identifying psychiatric symptoms that he experiences, multiple “buddy statements,” private psychological treatment records and an opinion. The Board finds this evidence is “new” in that it had not been previously submitted. Moreover, the evidence is “material” because it relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the Veteran’s claim; that is whether he has a diagnosis of PTSD. The evidence is neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the March 2013 rating decision and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156; Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110 (2010). De novo consideration of the claim is addressed below. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD The Veteran contends that he has PTSD that is etiologically related to combat exposure during active duty service in the Gulf War Era. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to active duty combat exposure. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Private medical treatment records, most recently submitted in July 2019, show the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD based on the DSM-V diagnostic criteria. 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 a February 2013 VA PTSD examination, that found the Veteran did not have symptoms that meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Instead the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with alcohol dependence in partial sustained remission, antisocial personality disorder, borderline personality disorder, and anxiety disorder. With respect to each of these diagnoses the examiner provided the following etiological comments; current self-report and medical records, onset likely during teenage years with conduct disorder, onset likely during teenage years, and onset likely around 1997 with situational stressors (polysubstance use/alcohol dependence/financial/problems/homelessness/unemployment). The evidence in favor of the claim includes multiple private diagnostic opinions and psychological evaluations provided by Dr. LS, the Veteran’s treating psychologist. The most recent and probative opinion was provided in July 2019. Dr. LS indicated that the Veteran’s treatment records were reviewed, to include VA treatment records, and that he had engaged in a substantial number of hours of in-person evaluation with the Veteran. The examiner concluded that the Veteran’s sole current psychiatric disability is PTSD, based on the DSM-V criteria, directly related to the Veteran’s combat exposure as an indirect fire infantry man during the Gulf War Era. Regarding the Veteran’s claimed combat exposure, the Board notes that the Veteran’s military occupational specialty was an Indirect Fire Infantryman and Unit Supply Specialist with the Southwest Asia Service Medal with two Bronze Service Stars. The Veteran also provided sworn testimony that his in-service stressor came from the combat events witnessed as a “cover gunner on the top of an APC M106 mortar [carrier]” during Desert Storm. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran currently has PTSD that is related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for PTSD is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P.S. McLeod 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.