Citation Nr: 21073483 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 18-32 619 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the medical evidence shows diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder based on a verified in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as PTSD, major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5013A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1979 to June 1983. He appeals a May 2017 rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denying entitlement to service connection for PTSD. See April 2018 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). A Board hearing was held in September 2021. A transcript is of record. The scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the Veteran's description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record; thus, the Board has recharacterized the claim on appeal to entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009). A veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a current disability resulting from personal injury or disease incurred in, or aggravated by, active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) 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. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (2004). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between the current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Within the legal framework for evaluating claims of service connection for PTSD, the sufficiency of a stressor is a medical determination, while the occurrence of the stressor is a legal determination. Sizemore v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 264 (2004). The Veteran has clinical diagnoses which include PTSD, major depressive disorder, and insomnia disorder; thus, the first element for service connection is met. See January 2018 and May 2017 Dr. R.G.H. Disability Benefits Questionnaires (DBQs). As a point of clarification, the Board notes that the Veteran attended a VA examination in September 2017. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress and alcohol use disorder. See September 2017 VA examination report. However, the examiner opined that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD "based on conflicting medical evidence and conflicting statements made by the Veteran regarding his reported traumatic stressor events." The VA examiner went on to provide negative nexus opinions for both the diagnosed unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress and alcohol use disorder. The Board finds that the September 2017 VA examiner's opinion is speculative and not adequate for adjudicative purposes; specifically, she stated she cannot make said determinations without "resort to mere speculation." Id. The Board has no way of knowing whether the examiner's opinion is one of speculation or a negative opinion based on her expertise and the medical evidence of record. See Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 390 (U.S. 2010); Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26, 33 (2017). Nonetheless, the Board finds that the opinion of Dr. R.G.H, discussed below, to be more probative regarding his diagnoses of PTSD, major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder. As such, these acquired psychiatric diagnoses will the be the subject of service connection in the instant matter as they have been medically related to the Veteran's verified in-service stressor. The Veteran contends that while serving aboard the U.S.S. Constellation, he witnessed a F-14 or VF-24 that experienced a failed landing. The Board observes that the AOJ has accepted the occurrence of this reported stressor. See August 2017 VA Memorandum. The AOJ noted that they could not confirm whether the Veteran personally witnessed said event. However, the Board finds the Veteran's statements that he witnessed the failed landing via video monitor credible. See Board Hearing Tr. at 6. Thus, the second element of service connection is met. As to nexus, the Veteran submitted a May 2017 opinion by Dr. R.G.H. Dr. R.G.H. opined that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorders, which he diagnosed as PTSD, major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder, were at least as likely as not due to the Veteran's claimed in-service stressors. See May 2017 Dr. R.G.H. medical opinion. Specifically, he based this opinion in part on the Veteran's verified stressor regarding the failed landing of the F-14. Id. Dr. R.G.H. provided a detailed history and adequate rationale. The Board finds Dr. R.G.H's opinion probative. Because the Veteran has psychiatric diagnoses which have been medically related to a verified in-service stressor, service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, diagnosed as PTSD, major depressive disorder, and related insomnia disorder is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Katie Poe, 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.