Citation Nr: 21002181 Decision Date: 01/12/21 Archive Date: 01/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 517 DATE: January 12, 2021 ORDER New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is reopened. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a December 2006 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denied service connection for PTSD. The Veteran did not appeal or submit new and material evidence within a year of the decision. Therefore, the December 2006 rating decision became final. 2. At the time of the December 2006 rating decision, the record did not contain evidence that the Veteran had PTSD. After the decision, the Veteran submitted evidence showing he had PTSD. This evidence is new and material and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 3. The Veteran’s PTSD resulted from combat stressors the Veteran experienced during active service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 3.156, 20.202. 2. The criteria to establish service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1967 to August 1969. He appeals a May 2013 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denying service connection for PTSD. In the October 2016 statement of the case (SOC), the AOJ additionally denied entitlement to an effective date earlier than September 15, 2010 for the award of service connection for diabetes mellitus (DM). In November 2016, the AOJ received the Veteran’s VA Form 9, which indicated he only wished to appeal the PTSD issue. Accordingly, the Board finds the Veteran did not perfect an appeal as to the effective date claim and that claim is not currently before the Board. A Board hearing was held in July 2019. In December 2020, the Veteran received a letter informing him that the Board could not produce a complete transcript of the proceeding due to audio malfunctions heard throughout the testimony. In a January 7, 2021 letter, the Veteran informed the Board that he did not wish to appear at another hearing and to consider his case on the evidence of record. Service Connection A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between the current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Here, the Veteran’s stressor is conceded as he earned a Combat Infantryman Badge. See DD Form 214. A psychologist found the Veteran has PTSD and opined that it is more likely than not the Veteran’s PTSD “is directly due to his combat service . . . in Vietnam.” See July 2018 Dr. S.F. disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ). Specifically, “[a]s a combat infantryman, [the Veteran] was exposed to multiple losses of soldiers and civilians. . . . Whereas the [V]eteran was in Vietnam and was assigned in a combat environment and was repeatedly in life-threatening situations, [the Veteran’s] displays the classic PTSD symptoms related to his military service and his symptoms have continued worsen [sic] over time.” Id. Therefore, the Board finds there is expert evidence of record establishing a link between the Veteran’s PTSD and his in-service stressor. Accordingly, the Board grants service connection for PTSD. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Salazar, 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.