Citation Nr: 21072519 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 19-24 086 DATE: December 3, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD, in accordance with VA regulations, or indeed any other acquired psychiatric disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from June 1952 to June 1955. He also served in the Georgia Army National Guard from February 1975 to July 1992. In December 2019, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) remanded this appeal for further evidentiary development. Service Connection for an Acquired Psychiatric Disorder, to include PTSD Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, a layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). Criteria for service connection for PTSD are more specific than those for other psychiatric disabilities. To establish service connection for PTSD, the evidence must satisfy three basic elements: 1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; 2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms of PTSD and an in-service stressor; and 3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, which he asserts is related to his military service. He describes his stressor as occurring in Inchon, Korea, when he was housed in a tent at the end of a portable temporary runway. He states that planes and other aircrafts would continually land and take flight and that, as a result, his nights and days were filled with discontinuous sleep, jitters, anger, aggravation, and loss of hearing. See November 2018 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD. VA found no evidence to support his claimed stressor. See June 2021 Records Research Response. Nonetheless, the record contains a June 2018 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) include a finding of an other specified trauma and stressor related disorder with subclinical symptoms of PTSD and other specified depressive disorder. The Veteran had symptoms of chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. The examiner did not provide an opinion regarding the etiology of the disorders. Pursuant to the prior remand, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2020. The examiner reviewed and reported the Veteran's history (including his pre-military, military, and post-military, family, psychosocial, and employment history) in detail. The examiner concluded that the Veteran did not have PTSD or any mental disorder that conforms with the DSM-V criteria. The examiner noted that the June 2018 DBQ yielded an inconclusive diagnosis and explained that in context, given the Veteran's age and current living circumstances, it is expected that he would experience symptoms indicated in the June 2018 DBQ to include anxiety, social isolation, and anergia. Also, the examiner found that the criteria upon which the June 2018 examiner relied were not the correct criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. For example, the June 2018 DBQ noted circumstances in which the Veteran had "thoughts of what might have been" if his had discharged weapons, but the Veteran stated that he never discharged weapons, was never attacked, never experienced any raids, and was never involved in any patrols. This caveat does not meet the criteria for PTSD. The examiner concluded that the contention of PTSD is not supported in the medical records, nor is there solid evidence of such in the June 2018 DBQ report or at the time of the current examination. After careful consideration of the evidence, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, is not warranted. In this regard, a key element to establishing service connection is a showing that a veteran has the claimed disability that meets the diagnostic criteria in accordance with the controlling VA regulation. This element may only be shown through evidence of a diagnosis of the claimed disability. The February 2020 VA examiner carefully reviewed the record and conducted a detailed clinical interview in reaching his conclusion that a diagnosis of a mental disorder, to include PTSD, was not appropriate. In assigning high probative value to the VA examiner's opinion, the Board reiterates that the claims file was reviewed, and that the Veteran's relevant social, occupational, and educational history was obtained. In addition, the examiner conducted a complete examination which included a focused clinical interview and then offered a reasoned explanation for his conclusion. There is no indication that the examiner was not fully aware of the Veteran's history or that he misstated any relevant fact. The Board thus finds the VA examiner's opinion to be of greater probative value than the Veteran's unsupported statements. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000) (noting that factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion include the thoroughness and detail of the opinion.); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). To the extent that the Veteran asserts that he has PTSD, the Board observes that, while he is competent to describe symptoms he experiences and when they occurred, he is not competent as a lay person to ascribe a diagnosis to those symptoms. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (explaining in footnote 4 that a Veteran is competent to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg, but not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). Thus, in determining whether he has PTSD, the Board places far more probative weight on the clinical findings of the VA examiner who conducted a comprehensive assessment prior to rendering a conclusion. The Board also concludes that service connection is not warranted for any other acquired psychiatric disorder. In this regard, the VA examiner specified that there is no diagnosis of a mental disorder. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim for service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); Gilpin v. West, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (service connection may not be granted unless a current disability exists). Further, the February 2020 examiner opined that the June 2018 DBQ erred in not taking into context the Veteran's age and state in life, in relation to his symptoms. Specifically, the examiner noted that all the Veteran's symptoms were somatic in nature and are probably related more to the natural aging process (e.g., sleep disturbance, insomnia, social isolation)and that his social isolation is related to his choice of living in a small rural town. Further, the examiner noted that the Veteran's family visits often and that he attends weekly Bible study at his church. Under these circumstances, the Board must conclude that the Veteran has not met the regulatory requirements of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. While the June 2018 DBQ diagnosed other specified trauma and stressor related disorder with subclinical symptoms of PTSD and other specified depressive disorder, the examiner provided no etiological opinion, and the February 2020 VA examiner found such diagnosis to be inconclusive as it did not account for the Veteran's age and state in life. As such, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, and that this claim must be denied. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. R. Bobb, 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.