Citation Nr: 21072644 Decision Date: 12/03/21 Archive Date: 12/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-07 558 DATE: December 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his PTSD is at least as likely as not related to his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from October 1990 to February 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in August 2021. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. The Veteran contends that he has a current diagnosis of PTSD, which is related to in-service stressors which include a scud missile attack on his living quarters, witnessing injuries, and working with dead bodies and mass graves. See August 2021 hearing transcript; May 2016 statement in support of claim for PTSD. The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability that is related to in-service stressors. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition; 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. 38 C.F.R. § § 3.304 (f). Mental disorder diagnoses are based upon the criteria provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), American Psychiatric Association. 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a). If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military activity, and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD, a veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor, as long as the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service and there is no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(3). "Fear of hostile military activity" is defined to mean that a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, and the veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. Id. The Veteran's DD 214 indicates that he was a combat engineer and he received the Kuwait Liberation Medal and the Southwest Asia Service Medal with 2 Bronze Service Stars. The DD 214 additionally noted the service in Southwest Asia was from January 1991 to April 1991. The Veteran's September 2017 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with DSM-5 PTSD. The Veteran's VA treating psychiatrist provided a nexus statement, opining that the Veteran's PTSD was related to his claimed in-service stressors. See August 2021 medical record, received September 2021. The Veteran's May 2016 VA examiner noted that the Veteran's claimed stressors were adequate to support a PTSD diagnosis. The Veteran's statements are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. Where the evidence for and against a claim is equal, the Board must give the Veteran the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, reasonable doubt is resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mookim, Hope P. 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.