Citation Nr: 21072157 Decision Date: 12/02/21 Archive Date: 12/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-20 865 DATE: December 2, 2021 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The currently diagnosed PTSD was incurred during active military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria to establish service connection for PTSD, are approximated. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 1154(b), 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from November 1950 to September 1956. He was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge and Korean Service Medal, among other decorations, for this service. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran has not raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board...to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to duty to assist argument). Further, given the favorable outcome in this decision that represents a full grant of the issues on appeal, further explanation of how VA has fulfilled the duties to notify and assist is not necessary. See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 394 (1993). 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for PTSD is Granted. The Veteran contends that service connection is warranted for the currently diagnosed PTSD. After review of the lay and medical evidence, the Board agrees and finds that service connection is warranted for PTSD. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in active service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). 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). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and an in-service stressor. VA is required to evaluate the supporting evidence in light of the places, types, and circumstances of service, as evidenced by service records, the official history of each organization in which the veteran served, the veteran's military records, and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). Unfortunately, the Veteran's STRs were destroyed in a fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) in 1973. See National Archives, The 1973 Fire, NPRC, http://www.archives.gov/st-louis/military-personnel/fire-1973.html (last visited June 7, 2018). Specifically, a June 1997 letter from NPRC indicates that the Veteran's records would have been in the area that suffered the most damage during the 1973 fire. However, the Veteran's June 1956 separation examination was found and showed no mental health issues. In November 2015, the Veteran filed a claim for service connection for PTSD. In April 2016, he underwent a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any mental health disabilities. The VA psychologist found that the Veteran's service in the Korean Conflict met the stressor criteria but that the other criteria for PTSD were not met and diagnosed the Veteran with an unspecified depressive disorder. In September 2021, the Veteran provided testimony in support of the claim. He reported participation in combat operation during the Korean Conflict including participating in the evacuation of casualties. In September 2021, the Veteran submitted a completed disability benefits questionnaire. The VA psychiatrist diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD. First, although the Veteran's service records do not document evidence of the claimed stressors during active-duty service, the Veteran's lay reports of in-service attacks by heavy machine gun fire are commensurate with his duties during service. Additionally, the Veteran was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge for his active-duty service. Based upon 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) his account of in-service stressors during service in a combat zone are presumed competent and credible. Accordingly, the Veteran's lay statements of in-service exposure to combat and casualties are competent evidence of the in-service stressor. Turning to the medical evidence, the Board finds that when combined the November 2015 and September 2021 examinations provide a basis for the grant of service connection. Specifically, the November 2015 VA examiner found the Veteran met the stressor criteria from his service in Korea. The September 2021 VA psychiatrist diagnosed PTSD based on this stressor. Therefore, service connection for PTSD is warranted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. There can be no doubt that further medical inquiry could be undertaken with a view towards development of the claim. Specifically, the Board could seek further examination to clarify and definitively opine on the nature and etiology of any current mental health disabilities. The Board could also order further development of the record and a more defined records search. However, under the law, where there exists "an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter," the Veteran shall prevail upon the issue. Ashley v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 52, 59 (1993); see also Massey v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 204, 206-207 (1994). In this case, although the first VA examination concluded that the Veteran did not have currently diagnosed PTSD, the September examiner 2021 psychologist diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD. As this diagnosis was made by a psychologist the Veteran has a current diagnosis during the appeal period. See Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 140 (1997) (holding that mental health professionals making diagnoses 'are presumed to know the DSM requirements applicable to their practice and to have taken them into account.'). Furthermore, the November 2015 VA examiner opined the Veteran's reported stressor met the appropriate criteria. The Board further notes that the Veteran's DD214 confirms he the award of the Combat Infantryman Badge and Korean Service Medal. Thus, the Board finds the evidence corroborates the reported stressor. Lastly, the lay and medical evidence link the current symptoms to service. In sum, the Board finds that the evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise. That is, there is at least an approximate balance of evidence both for and against the nexus between the in-service stressor and currently diagnosed PTSD. Under such circumstances, all reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Because a diagnosis of PTSD has been offered, and because competent and credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred has been offered, service connection for PTSD is warranted. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Teague, 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.