Citation Nr: 21063570 Decision Date: 10/14/21 Archive Date: 10/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-14 280 DATE: October 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT No in-service stressor sufficient to cause the Veteran's PTSD has been verified. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 4.125. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1971 to March 1977. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2011 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In February 2018, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD The Veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD. As an initial matter, the Board notes that VA has not provided the Veteran an examination to determine the cause of his claimed PTSD. As will be discussed in detail below, VA has been unable to confirm that either of the Veteran's claimed in-service stressors occurred, and neither claimed in-service stressor is of the type that could be independently confirmed by an examiner. The Board therefore finds that remanding the issue for further examination would not result in any further benefit to the Veteran and would cause an unnecessary delay in the adjudication of the case. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994); Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540 (1991) (remand not required when it would impose unnecessary burdens on VA adjudication system with no benefit flowing to the Veteran); cf. Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 123-24 (2010) (Lance, J., concurring) ("reopening [a] claim only to deny it without providing assistance would be a hollow, technical decision. There is no reason to expend agency resources on a semantic determination that is not tied to a meaningful procedural duty.") Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with § 4.125(a) of this chapter; a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in- service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in- service stressor occurred. Certain exceptions to the requirement for credible supporting evidence that a claimed stressor occurred apply in the following circumstances: If PTSD was diagnosed during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service; if a veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat; if a claimed stressor a veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor; if a veteran was a prisoner-of-war and the claimed stressor is related to that prisoner-of-war experience, or; if the claimed stressor is an in-service personal attack. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Veteran's available service treatment records (STRs) do not show any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment of any psychiatric condition. While the Veteran's separation examination is not included in his available STRs, he does not claim, and the other medical evidence of record does not show, that he developed PTSD symptoms during or soon after service. The Veteran's VA treatment records from as early as September 2009 contain a diagnosis of PTSD and consistent reports that he has symptoms related to two claimed in-service stressors. The question that remains before the Board is whether there is credible supporting evidence that either of these stressors occurred, or if not, whether the Veteran's claim falls into any of the exceptions to this evidence requirement. The Board concludes that there is no credible supporting evidence that either claimed in-service stressor occurred and neither stressor falls into any of the exceptions to this evidence requirement. The Veteran has consistently described two claimed in-service stressors. Both are claimed to have happened while he was stationed at Ft. Hood, Texas. The Veteran claimed that around March or April 1974, or possibly 1973, he was in an M88 armored recovery vehicle when a refueling mishap set it on fire. He stated that the M88 uses airplane fuel and he believed it was about to explode, so he jumped from the vehicle and threw himself down in a field awaiting the explosion and fearing for his life. He stated that someone was able to extinguish the fire, and nobody was physically injured in this incident. He also claimed that in June or July of 1974 a commander was killed by a tank rollover and the Veteran was then assigned to repair that tank. The Veteran has claimed that because of the extinguishers in the M88 being used to put out the fire, the vehicle would have been taken out of use until any damage could be assessed and any expended firefighting equipment refilled or replaced, all of which should have generated related paperwork and reports. Similarly, a soldier's on-base death by tank accident should have been noted in official reports and paperwork. In September 2010, the Defense Personnel and Records Information retrieval System (DPRIS) provided a report that records from the Veteran's division from February 1974 through August 1974 showed only one casualty, and that was attributed to self-inflicted small arms fire. The DPRIS suggested conducting further research by contacting both the US Army Crime Center and the US Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center. In October 2010, VA sent records requests to both the US Army Crime Center and the US Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center seeking records of an M88 refueling fire at Ft. Hood in March or April of 1974 and records of a tank rollover casualty in June or July of 1974. In November 2010, the US Army Combat Readiness/Safety Center responded that they found no records responsive to these requests. In December 2010, the US Army Crime Center responded that they found no records responsive to these requests. A November 2019 memo states that a search of the National Archives and Records Administration in College Park, MD found no records submitted by the Veteran's unit for all of 1974. A search of historical and casualty information from Ft. Hood for the same period showed no vehicle fire in April 1974. The only similar incident was a tank that caught fire in in an assembly area on August 29, 1974. The Veteran's personnel records show that he had been transferred to Germany and arrived there by August 22, 1974. In August 2020, VA requested records related to the claimed stressor through the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) office responsible for releasing Army records, including those from Ft. Hood. That office responded that the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) was the appropriate agency to contact for help confirming whether the claimed stressors occurred. Finally, a May 2021 memo from the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Military Records Research Center, the successor agency to the JSRRC, searched for evidence of the Veteran's reported vehicle fire stressor using the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) casualty database and the Military Activities Report (OMAR) casualty database, between March 20, 1973 and May 15, 1973, and located no relevant records. The Veteran has been informed that he could seek lay statements from other soldiers who may have witnessed the claimed stressor events, but he reports no contact with anyone who may have been present and has not submitted any such statements. The Board finds that, in light of the multiple documented requests to all known relevant federal records repositories and the consistently negative responses, that VA has satisfied its duty to assist the Veteran in locating records to support his claim, and that further requests sent to the same repositories would be futile. As noted above, the Veteran's PTSD was not diagnosed during service. His claimed stressors are not related to combat with an enemy, fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, a prisoner-of-war experience, or an in-service personal attack. Therefore, none of the available exceptions to the requirement for credible supporting evidence apply to the Veteran's claims. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's argument in his September 2021 brief that he is competent to report what he observed and experienced and that this should be sufficient evidence to support a finding that one or both of his claimed stressors occurred. However, the plain language of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) requires credible supporting evidence in addition to the Veteran's statement. Otherwise, the Veteran's claim alone, repeated as a statement of fact, would be sufficient to satisfy this criterion, which would render the section redundant and without meaningful effect. After exhausting all known avenues for locating relevant records, no credible evidence has been received to support the conclusion that either of the Veteran's claimed in-stressors occurred. While the Board does not question the Veteran's experience of symptoms or need for the treatment he receives for his mental health, the Board is bound by the regulations cited above, and cannot grant service connection for PTSD without credible supporting evidence that the claimed in- service stressor occurred. Service connection for PTSD is therefore not warranted. L. M. BARNARD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Zimmerman, Micah 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.