Citation Nr: 21004669 Decision Date: 01/27/21 Archive Date: 01/27/21 DOCKET NO. 10-38 619 DATE: January 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for psychiatric disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s psychiatric disability had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from March 1973 to March 1977. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in March 2019. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The Veteran asserts the he is entitled to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability due to service or alternatively to his service-connected disability. See March 2019 Hr’g Tr. The Board finds that service connection for psychiatric disability is warranted. Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff’d per curiam, 78 F. 3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). As the Board finds direct service connection is warranted, secondary service connection will not be addressed. The Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. See December 2019 Initial PTSD DBQ. The Board notes, the Veteran has multiple psychiatric diagnoses, including depression and major depressive disorder. Id. The Veteran testified that while serving in Germany and on a weekend pass, he ran into a protest where they were fired upon. He reported that he received delayed onset flashbacks as a result of the event. See March 2019 Hr’g Tr. at 24-29. The Veteran’s ex-wife stated that she observed the Veteran during his time in service. She reported, that in March 1975, they got an apartment together and during that time, he would toss and turn in his sleep and have night sweats and would hardly sleep. He would wake up screaming about people in the crowd. She would tell him he needed to seek help about his problem but he thought the Army would think he was weak. See March 2016 Correspondence. The Veteran’s private examiner opined, that the Veteran’s PTSD is at least as likely as not due to military service. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran has received a significant amount of mental health treatment since leaving the military. She acknowledged and discussed the incident the Veteran reported during service. Based on the information he received, the private examiner reasoned that the Veteran suffered PTSD since retiring from the military due to a traumatic event that he witnessed in Berlin. See June 2019 Private Report. The examiner provided sound reasoning for his nexus opinion. The Board acknowledges the December 2019 negative nexus opinion. The examiner reasoned that the Veteran’s PTSD preexisted military service; however, the examiner also acknowledged that the medical evidence supported the Veteran having issues with depression that in part stemmed from the Berlin shooting. He noted, the Veteran’s issues prior to the Berlin shooting did not cause social or occupational impairment. He reasoned, the Veteran experienced worsening depression and now meets the criteria for major depressive disorder. At the January 1973 Risk Assessment Examination, the Veteran’s psychiatric evaluation was noted as normal. See January 1973 RA Examination. As such, the Veteran is presumed to have been sound at the time of entry into service with respect to a psychiatric disorder. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that service connection for psychiatric disability, variously diagnosed, is warranted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, 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.