Citation Nr: 21073411 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-08 153 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that an acquired psychiatric disorder began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1974 to May 1977. The Board remanded the claim in October 2019. There has been substantial compliance with the remand directives and the Board will proceed to adjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD The Veteran asserts his PTSD is related to an in-service stressor of witnessing the deaths of two fellow servicemen during his service at Fort Bliss, Texas. Alternatively, he asserts that his depressive disorder is related to that event. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). The sufficiency of a stressor is a medical determination and is presumed by a medical diagnosis of PTSD. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD under the DSM 5 criteria and persistent depressive disorder the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. In his August 2008 statement in support of claim for PTSD, the Veteran reported that while on assignment as a mechanic working on tanks at Fort Bliss, Texas, around July 11, 1975, he witnessed a man crushed between two tanks. He reported he began having insomnia at that time and later had nightmares. He reported he did not know the name of the serviceperson. In a December 2008 memorandum the JSRRC coordinator indicated that the Veteran's reported stressor could not be confirmed. The Veteran's claimed in-service stressor was that in 1975 he came across a soldier that had been crushed between two tanks. The JSRRC coordinator noted that the Veteran did not know the individual's name or unit and without additional information it was a non-researchable stressor event. In a December 2008 formal finding on a lack of information to verify the stressor, it was determined that the information required to corroborate the stressor event described by the Veteran was insufficient to send to the JSRRC and National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) records. The Veteran had not responded to requests for additional information regarding his claimed stressor event. At the May 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that to the best of his recollection in early summer 1975 he witnessed another serviceman crushed between two tanks. He testified that he did not know the man's name and he was from a different company altogether. In a May 2019 statement, the Veteran reported that he was stationed in Fort Bliss, Texas and during the late spring or summer of 1975 he saw a soldier who was killed either crushed between two tanks or run over by heavy equipment. He reported he did not know what unit the other soldier was serving in. He reported that he had reached out to Fort Bliss Safety for validation, but had not been successful. The Veteran's initial claim of service connection had been denied in a final March 2009 rating decision because there was no evidence of a nexus to service. In an October 2019 decision, the Board reopened the claim and remanded to obtain a medical opinion. On January 2020 VA examination both PTSD and persistent depressive disorder were diagnosed under the DSM 5 criteria. The examiner opined that both his PTSD and persistent depressive disorder were related to the Veteran's claimed in-service stressors of witnessing a soldier that was crushed between two deaths and seeing another soldier fall off a tanker in 1976. Regarding his persistent depressive disorder, the examiner noted that it was a diagnosis in addition to and secondary of PTSD, and opined that it was at least as likely as not related to his claimed in-service stressor events. In a June 2021 records research response, no evidence was located to support the documentation of the Veteran's claimed stressor. It was noted that a professional researcher from the Veterans Benefits Administration, Compensation Service, Military Records Research Center, has completed comprehensive research on Veteran's claimed stressor while serving with the 171st Maintenance Platoon, 3rd Armored Calvary Regiment in Fort Bliss, Texas between June and August 1975 claiming that the Veteran witness a servicemember who had been crushed between two tanks. It was noted they requested records from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), who is the custodian for the 1975 Army Records, and NARA was unable to locate records for the unit and dates the Veteran provided. While the January 2020 VA examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's PTSD and depressive disorder were related to his claimed in-service stressor events, the opinion is not probative because there is no credible supporting evidence that the reported stressor events occurred. While the Veteran asserts he witnessed a fellow servicemember crushed between two tanks at Fort Bliss, Texas in the Spring or Summer 1975, and in January 2020 reported witnessing another servicemember fall off a tanker in 1976, he has offered no additional information to verify such events. He has not provided this other servicemember's name or unit and has provided inconsistent dates of the event. Based on this lack of information, the JSRRC and NARA were unable to obtain records to verify such event occurred. The Board recognizes that in their September 2021 appellate brief the Veteran's representative asserted that VA's duty to assist obligations have not been fully met as they did not request supporting documentation from the JSRRC or the Army Criminal Investigation Command/Army Crime Records Center to confirm the Veteran's reported stressor. However, the Board notes that "the duty to assist is not always a one-way street," and a claimant has an obligation to provide VA information necessary to substantiate the claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). In this case, the Veteran as not provided any of the information necessary to request records to verify his claimed stressor event, and has specifically reported that he did not know the necessary information such as the reported dead servicemember's name or unit. Accordingly, any such additional requests for records would be futile, and VA has met its duty to assist obligations. While Veteran believes his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his claimed in stressor event, the Board reiterates there is no credible supporting evidence that the claimed actually occurred. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder is denied. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Eric Struening 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.