Citation Nr: 21074331 Decision Date: 12/14/21 Archive Date: 12/14/21 DOCKET NO. 20-30 020 DATE: December 14, 2021 ORDER Service connection for acquired psychiatric to include unspecified trauma stressor related disorder with other specified depressive disorder, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), or is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has a diagnosis for unspecified trauma stressor disorder and PTSD, an occurrence of an in-service stressor, and evidence that the Veteran's current PTSD symptoms are related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for acquired psychiatric to include unspecified trauma stressor related disorder with other specified depressive disorder and PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from June 1965 to November 1968, including service during the Vietnam Era. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In March 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ); a transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. 1. Service connection for acquired psychiatric to include PTSD, or unspecified trauma stressor related disorder with other specified depressive disorder. The Veteran contends that that his PTSD symptoms are related to his service during the Vietnam War. To prevail on a direct service connection claim, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms 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 evidence necessary to establish the occurrence of a stressor during service to support a diagnosis of PTSD will vary depending upon the circumstances of the case. VA has provided for specific types of cases where lay evidence alone may be sufficient to describe the stressor and further corroborating evidence will not be required. Corroborating evidence is not required in cases where (1) PTSD is diagnosed in service; (2) the evidence establishes the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat; (3) the evidence establishes that the Veteran was a prisoner-of-war and the stressor is related to that prisoner-of-war experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4). In any of the above situations, the Veteran's lay testimony or statement is accepted as conclusive evidence of the stressor's occurrence and no further development or corroborative evidence is required providing that such testimony is found to be consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of service and there is no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(1), (f)(2), (f)(4). Additionally, lay evidence alone may establish an alleged stressor where: 1) the stressor is related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity; 2) a VA psychiatrist, VA psychologist, or VA-contracted psychiatrist or psychologist, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the Veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor; 3) the stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran's service; and 4) there is no clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(3). Fear of hostile military or terrorist activity is defined as occurring when 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, such as from an actual or potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon friendly military aircraft, and the Veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. Id. A disability may be service connected on a secondary basis if it is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury; or, if it is aggravated beyond its natural progress by a service-connected disease or injury. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a), (b). After careful review, the Board finds that service connection for acquired psychiatric to include PTSD, or unspecified trauma stressor related disorder with other specified depressive disorder is warranted. First, a January 2018 VA PTSD examination revealed the Veteran has unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder and other specified depressive disorder. Further, a September 2019 VA mental health note indicated the Veteran had a PTSD diagnosis. As such, the Veteran has a current disability. Second, the January 2018 VA PTSD examination also indicated that the Veteran had an in-service stressor that is related to his current symptoms. The VA examiner described the stressor as "vicarious trauma" experienced by the Veteran. The VA examiner stated that although the Veteran was not personally involved in combat, his military occupation specialty (MOS) as a teletype operator, exposed him to it. The VA examiner noted that one of the Veteran's job duties was typing out all the flight manifests. As such, the VA examiner noted the Veteran personally knew other Veterans who were seriously injured or killed as a result of his MOS. In sum, the VA examiner reported that the Veteran's in-service stressor is related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and is adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD. Thus, the question for the Board is whether there is a link, established by medical evidence, between the Veteran's current symptoms and the in-service stressors. The Board finds that entitlement to service connection for PTSD is warranted. In January 2018, a VA PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) opined the Veteran's unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder and other specified depressive disorder are at least as likely as not related to the claimed in-service stressor. The rationale provided by the VA examiner indicated that the Veteran's symptoms are indicative of the long-term emotional fallout associated with peripheral involvement/exposure to the Vietnam war. The VA examiner noted that although the Veteran "was not 'personally' involved in hand to hand combat, his Intel MOS permitted him to see ahead of time what could or would likely transpire on the battlefield long before it actually took place." Additionally, the VA examiner reported that "it seems that the [Veteran] may have experienced his role in the service similar to those who pilot drones from 1000s of miles away. In other words, though he didn't personally "see it", destruction and death were most likely the end result and that's part of what haunts him to this day." See January 2018 VA PTSD DBQ. In February 2021, a VA social worker submitted an opinion stating, "that the Veteran's military service played a significant role in the Veteran being the man he is today." See February 2021 VA social worker opinion. The VA social worker reported that the Veteran's depression and anger issues have presented the Veteran with challenges during his entire life since leaving the military in 1968. The Board finds the January 2018 VA PTSD DBQ to be both competent and credible, and as such, entitled to significant probative weight. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994). The opinion was rendered after reviewing the entire VA claims file, including all service treatment records, lay statements, VA treatment records and interviewing the Veteran. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444 (2000) (factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion include the examiner's access to the claims folder and the Veteran's history, and the thoroughness and detail of the opinion). Significantly, the Board notes that there is no conflicting medical evidence to contradict the opinion from the January 2018 VA examiner. Therefore, the Board finds the January 2018 VA PTSD DBQ to be probative. See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993) (noting that the credibility and weight to be attached to medical opinions are within the province of the Board). Additionally, in March 2021, the Veteran had a Board hearing before the undersigned and testified that he didn't receive treatment during service but did state that he began receiving treatment for PTSD after service. Additionally, the Veteran described the emotional strain his MOS had on him during and after active service. The Board finds the statements by the Veteran to be probative, as he is competent to describe observable symptoms of his mental health. The statements have also been consistent with mental health notes in VA treatment records since the Veteran finished his active service. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374-75 (2002). In sum, the Veteran has a current diagnosis, an in-service stressor, and a probative January 2018 VA PTSD DBQ opinion providing a medical nexus linking the Veteran's PTSD to service. As such, resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that service connection for acquired psychiatric to include PTSD, or unspecified trauma stressor related disorder with other specified depressive disorder is warranted. H. SEESEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Dourmashkin 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.