Citation Nr: A21018232 Decision Date: 11/15/21 Archive Date: 11/15/21 DOCKET NO. 191223-58012 DATE: November 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the evidence supports a finding of a current diagnosis of PTSD that has been medically linked to a verified in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310, 4.125. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from June 1959 to June 1963 and from August 1963 to August 1969. The Veteran filed a supplemental claim in November 2019 for readjudication of a previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In a December 2019 rating decision, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) readjudicated, but continued the denial of the claim. In December 2019, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10812 Notice of Disagreement to appeal his claim directly to the Board. In doing, so, the Veteran selected the Hearing Docket. In a June 2020 communication, the Veteran requested to move his appeal to the Evidence Docket. However, it appears this communication was never acknowledged. In March 2021, the Veteran testified before the Board at a virtual telehearing. At that time, the Veteran was advised that any evidence submitted between the December 2019 rating decision and his hearing would not be eligible for review, and that he had the 90-day window following the hearing in which to submit or resubmit any evidence for review. The Veteran acknowledged his understanding of this framework. Based on the Veteran's participation in the hearing, and in light of the positive disposition below, there is no undue prejudice against the Veteran due to the failure to respond to his request to change dockets. Accordingly, the Board reviews all evidence that was of record at the time of the December 2019 rating decision, as well as any evidence submitted within the 90-day period following the Veteran's March 2021 hearing. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.304. Service connection generally requires 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. Walker v. Shinseki, 701 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Notwithstanding the lack of evidence of disease or injury during service, service connection may still be granted if all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As it pertains specifically, to PTSD, service connection requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Here, there has been some inconsistency regarding whether the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. In June 2017, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. At that time, the examiner reported diagnoses of PTSD and insomnia disorder, with symptoms that could not be differentiated from one another. The examiner found that PTSD was related to a number of in-service stressors. However, at the time, none of those stressors had been verified. In October 2018 VA treatment, the Veteran had a mental health screening that was positive for PTSD. Then, in a November 2018 mental health diagnostic study with a VA psychiatrist, the Veteran had a score of 22 on the PCL-5 assessment. The psychiatrist noted that this was indicative of moderate PTSD symptoms. In December 2018, the Veteran underwent a new VA examination. At that time, the examiner reported that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, or for any other mental health disorder. The examiner did not address the Veteran's history of diagnoses in making this finding. Given the conflicting reports, the Board resolves all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor to find that the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD. Two separate VA psychiatrists have made the diagnosisincluding one who was specifically asked to do so under the criteria of VA regulations. There is nothing to indicate that those psychiatrists were not competent to make the diagnosis. Moreover, the December 2018 VA examiner provided no explanation to reconcile the lack of diagnosis at that examination with the prior positive diagnoses. The Board therefore finds the December 2018 examination to be less than adequate. Conceding a PTSD diagnosis, the remaining question at issue then is whether there is a link between the disability and an in-service stressor. Notably, at the Veteran's first VA examination in June 2017, the examiner linked the Veteran's PTSD to a number of reported in-service stressors. Among those stressors was a serious fire aboard the USS Franklin D. Roosevelt. At that time, the AOJ had not taken appropriate steps to attempt to verify the stressors, but was later able to do so. To date, there has been no verification of the other stressors the Veteran identified. Here, although PTSD may also be related to a number of unverified stressors, a qualified mental health professional has provided a medical link between PTSD and a confirmed in-service stressor. This satisfies the criteria of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(f) and 4.125(a). Accordingly, service connection for PTSD is granted. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Giaquinto, 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.