Citation Nr: 20046568 Decision Date: 07/13/20 Archive Date: 07/13/20 DOCKET NO. 09-27 850A DATE: July 13, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s PTSD is related to witnessing the death of a sailor while serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1961 to August 1963. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2008 rating decision by the Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The claim was previously remanded by the Board in April 2013, January 2017, and October 2018. The Veteran presented testimony at a Board hearing in March 2013. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims folder. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. The Veteran asserts that he has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is related to witnessing the death of a sailor while serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk. After a review of the claims file, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is related to his claimed in-service stressor. 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). Claims of service connection for PTSD require medical diagnosis conforming to the requirements of section 4.125(a) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), an in-service stressor accompanied by credible and supporting evidence that the stressor claimed to be the cause of the disorder occurred in service, and established medical evidence connecting the current disability to the stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 138 (1997). Within the legal framework for evaluating claims of service connection for PTSD, the sufficiency of a stressor is a medical determination, while the occurrence of the stressor is a legal determination. Sizemore v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 264 (2004). The Board notes that there is conflicting evidence regarding whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. In VA examinations conducted in January 2012, September 2015, and April 2018, he was diagnosed with depressive disorder. (1/15/2012, VA Examination, p. 2); (9/20/2015, C&P Exam, p. 10); (5/16/2018, C&P Exam, p. 2). However, in a May 2019 VA examination he was diagnosed with PTSD. (6/14/2019, C&P Exam, p. 1). Similarly, his VA medical records indicate that he is currently diagnosed with, and being treated for, PTSD. (10/23/2019, CAPRI, p. 28). After a review of the medical evidence, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. In this regard, the Veteran’s treating psychiatrist has diagnosed him with PTSD, and he was diagnosed with PTSD during a May 2019 VA examination. While there are multiple VA examinations where a diagnosis of PTSD was not rendered, the Board finds that, given the Veteran’s long-standing history of treatment for PTSD provided by VA, a higher degree of probative value should be assigned to the diagnosis of his VA treating psychiatrist. As such, the Board finds that the first element of service connection for PTSD has been met. Thus, the question becomes whether there is credible evidence of an in-service stressor. The Veteran claims that his PTSD is related to witnessing a sailor be killed by a plane propeller while serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk. (10/4/2017, VA 21-0781, p. 3). In developing the claim, the RO submitted a request for information to the Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) regarding Navy casualty files from the USS Kitty Hawk. DPRIS confirmed that a sailor was killed on December 11, 1962, in an “elevator accident.” (1/5/2012, DPRIS Response, p. 1). The Veteran’s service personnel records confirm that he was serving aboard the USS Kitty Hawk at the time of the accident. (5/22/2015, Military Personnel Record, p. 4). The Board finds that the DPRIS response is sufficient to establish that the Veteran’s claimed stressor occurred. While the DPRIS does not indicate that the accident was related to a sailor being struck by a plane propeller, given the lack of detail contained in the DPRIS response, the Board will afford the Veteran the benefit of the doubt and conclude that the accident detailed by DPRIS is related to the Veteran’s claimed stressor. As such, the Board finds that there is credible evidence of the claimed in-service stressor. The Board will next consider whether there is medical evidence connecting the current disability to the claimed stressor. The Board notes that the VA examiners in January 2012, September 2015, and April 2018, indicated that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD. However, as previously noted, the Board has assigned little probative value to these opinions as they are inconsistent with VA treatment records. The June 2019 opinion was provided by a VA medical professional who possesses the necessary education, training, and expertise to provide the requested opinions. Additionally, the opinion is also shown to have been based on a review of the Veteran’s record and is accompanied by a sufficient explanation as to why the Veteran’s PTSD is related to his claimed stressor. The Board thus places the highest degree of probative weight on the June 2019 medical opinion. In sum, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s current PTSD is related to his claimed in-service stressor. 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. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Glenn, 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.