Citation Nr: A21019573 Decision Date: 12/08/21 Archive Date: 12/08/21 DOCKET NO. 200522-88462 DATE: December 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's PTSD is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran honorably served in the Army from February 1988 to November 1991 and in the Army Reserves from February 1995 to May 1995. This matter was appealed through submission of a May 2020 VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement) under the Direct Review appeal lane from a May 2019 rating decision. Service connection for PTSD Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 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 an injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the current disability and the disease or injury in service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD, specifically, requires medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a) (meaning in accordance with the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)), 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. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). The Regional Office (RO) has made favorable findings that the evidence shows that the Veteran has the required current DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD and that a nexus between this disability and in-service stressors has been established. See May 2019 rating decision. Consequently, there need only be confirmation of the claimed stressor, i.e., corroboration of the precipitating incident or event, to establish his entitlement to service connection for this condition. When a determination is made that the Veteran did not "engage in combat with the enemy," or the claimed stressor is unrelated to combat (as is the case, here) or does not involve one of the other exceptions discussed in the several subparts of § 3.304(f)(1)(5), the Veteran's lay testimony alone will not be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. See Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163, 166 (1996). Instead, the record must include service records or other credible evidence that supports and does not contradict the Veteran's testimony. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283, 289 (1994). Moreover, a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD does not suffice to verify the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. See Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 395-396; Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 134 (1997) ("Anecdotal incidents, although they may be true, are not researchable. In order to be researched, incidents must be reported and documented"). The Veteran has reported witnessing two traumatic events during his service in Germany. In 1988 he reported that he witnessed a grenade explode in a fellow servicemember's hand, blowing it off and sending shrapnel into another servicemember's (whom he mentions by name) face. He also reported that in 1990 he saw a servicemember's eye poked out by a radio antenna from a jeep that was reversing. The Veteran underwent a private psychological evaluation in May 2018. He was found to have met the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD. The private psychologist stated that since experiencing these events the Veteran's mental health and emotional well-being began deteriorating. He experiences auditory and visual hallucinations of the events and relives the events during nightmares. He was assessed as experiencing depressed mood and he isolates himself while struggling with the memories of these traumatic events. A separate January 2019 independent medical analysis performed by a licensed psychologist is also of record and confirmed the findings of the May 2018 psychologist. The record also contains a notarized December 2018 statement from the Veteran's brothers which states that he has personally witnessed the Veteran's mental deterioration since his return from service. He corroborated that the Veteran has nightmares and flashbacks regarding the claimed in-service stressors. He further stated that over the years he has witnessed the Veteran hallucinate and relive the claimed in-service stressors and has seen him have panic attacks when watching movies or events that remind him of these events. After a review of the evidence, the Board finds the May 2018 private psychological evaluation and medical opinion to be highly probative evidence. The examiner provided sufficient rationale that addressed the Veteran's lay statements and were based on a complete review of the medical record. The examiner determined that the Veteran had a current diagnosis of PTSD that was directly related to his reported in-service stressors. Further, the Board has been given no reason to doubt the Veteran's credibility regarding the reported in-service stressors and two separate licensed mental health practitioners have raised no concerns regarding his credibility or his ability to accurately recall past events. Additionally, the December 2018 statement from the Veteran's brother is a firsthand account that corroborates the Veteran's subjective reports of experiencing hallucinations, panic attacks, and nightmares related to the claimed in-service stressors. This evidence is also credible in supporting his reported in-service stressors. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran's PTSD is due to his in-service stressors, and as such, service connection is warranted. Therefore, the Board resolves all doubt in his favor and finds that service connection for PTSD is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Kyle McKone 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.