Citation Nr: 21067183 Decision Date: 11/03/21 Archive Date: 11/03/21 DOCKET NO. 19-24 564 DATE: November 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's PTSD is at least as likely as not caused by an in-service stressor that has been corroborated by credible supporting evidence. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving doubt in the Veteran's favor, his PTSD was incurred in or is related to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from January 1963 to February 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2018 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2020, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the transcript has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims folder. In March 2021, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include obtaining a VA examination. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with its' remand directives. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for PTSD because he witnessed the death of a paratrooper. See Board Hearing Transcript, p. 15. For the reasons explained below, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection is warranted. Establishment of service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). See also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). There is no evidence that the Veteran was treated for an acquired psychiatric disorder during service. The earliest objective evidence of psychological issues was a diagnosis of anxiety from Dr. O.A. in 2009. There is objective evidence that the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD in 2020 by Dr. M.L. The Veteran reported that he has been treated for over 40 years with psychotropic medication from his primary care physician. See June 2021 VA examination report. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds there is medical evidence diagnosing PTSD. Further, there is objective corroborative evidence of the parachutist's death the Veteran claimed to witness. Therefore, the Board finds that there is credible evidence of an in-service stressor. As there is evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD and credible evidence supporting that a claimed in-stressor occurred, the question turns to whether the two are related. Here, the Board finds that the evidence is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's PTSD is related to his military service. On the one hand, in a May 2020 opinion, Dr. M.L. opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's PTSD was related to witnessing the paratrooper's death in service. She reasoned that "[t]he severity of the trauma witnessed by [the Veteran] is severe enough to have caused long term symptoms and his reaction was later aggravated by post military stressors." On the other hand, the Veteran was afforded a VA PTSD examination in June 2021 where the examiner opined that the Veteran carried a PTSD diagnosis but that it was less likely than not that it was related to service. The examiner reasoned, "[a]lthough [the Veteran's emotional problems may well have begun during his military service, there is little evidence to support that claim." The examiner found that the Veteran was "clearly exposed to a traumatic event, witnessing the accidental death of a fellow soldier, but there is no indication of psychological problems emerging during his time in the military or for several decades after his discharge." The Board finds both Dr. M.L.'s May 2020 medical opinion and the June 2021 VA examination report to be probative in nature. A medical opinion is most probative if it is factually accurate, fully articulated, and based on sound reasoning. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Both examiners are psychologists who are qualified to provide etiological opinions regarding the Veteran's PTSD. They both reviewed the Veteran's records and considered his lay statements before providing an opinion supported by adequate rationale. However, they came to different conclusions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's PTSD. The Board also credits the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service experiences and post service symptoms. He provided a detailed account of his experiences and had objective evidence to corroborate them. See generally, 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (d). The Veteran testified that after witnessing the parachutist's death, he began to exhibit symptoms of nightmares, difficulty sleeping, and excessive alcohol intake. See Board Hearing Transcript, p. 17. Here, the private medical opinion in addition to the lay statements described above weigh in favor of the grant of service connection, while the negative nexus VA examination report and opinion weighs against the claim. The Board finds that the cumulative weight of the favorable evidence is equal to the weight of the negative evidence; and resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 54 (1990). Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Baskerville 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.