Citation Nr: 21005624 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-23 066 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD, is dismissed as moot. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a PTSD diagnosis under the criteria set forth in the 5th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 2. The Veteran has mental health diagnoses of anxiety disorder and other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder. 3. In an April 2019 rating decision, the RO rated the Veteran’s other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder along with his service-connected anxiety disorder. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. PTSD was not incurred in service and is not attributable to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f). 2. The issue of entitlement to service connection for other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder is moot. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service from December 1966 to November 1968. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal before from an August 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Veteran testified at a travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the transcript has been associated with the Veteran’s electronic claims folder. Service Connection 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for PTSD because he was stationed in Tay Ninh during service and was exposed to wounded soldiers and those killed in action on a frequent basis. See Board Hearing Transcript, pp. 4-7. He testified that he feels like he was in Vietnam just yesterday, even though it was 50 years prior. Id. at 8. For the reasons explained below, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection is not warranted. Establishment of service connection for 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); see also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). The Board acknowledges that VA, effective March 19, 2015, amended the portion of the Rating Schedule dealing with mental disorders so as to replace outdated references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition (DSM-IV), with references to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). See 79 Fed. Reg. 149, 45094 (August 4, 2014). VA directed that the changes be applied only to applications for benefits received by VA or pending before the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) on or after August 4, 2014, but not to claims certified to, or pending before, the Board, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), or the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. As the Veteran’s claim was certified to the Board in September 2017 (after August 4, 2014), the diagnosis of his PTSD should conform to DSM-5. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a) (2017). VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran complained of symptoms of anxiety and depression. He endorsed symptoms of sleep problems; unpleasant dreams; hypervigilance and exaggerated startle response. April 2019 VA treatment notes indicate that the Veteran had a positive PTSD screen. In June 2019, he was diagnosed with anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified. November 2019 VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran endorsed PTSD symptoms of nightmares, flashbacks, avoidance, etc. In an October 2020 medical opinion, the clinician opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran had a diagnosis of PTSD related to events in service. The clinician opined that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD under DSM-5. “While many combat veterans develop symptoms of mental health disorders as a direct result of trauma exposure, not all symptom presentations meet full criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD.” She addressed why the Veteran’s treating VA psychiatrists and psychologist diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD even though he did not meet the criteria. In essence, she explained that their jobs were to help veterans and treat them for their mental disorder symptoms. “If the veteran reports symptoms consistent with PTSD, many clinicians indicate that they do not have time to conduct a thorough, evidence-based PTSD assessment. They, therefore, understandably, accept the veteran’s self-report and proceed to offer medication, psychotherapy and/or psychoeducational groups for PTSD to the veteran.” She cited to appropriate medical treatises to support her conclusion. The Board finds that the October 2020 VA medical opinion is the most probative evidence of record. It was based upon a thorough review of the record and thoughtful analysis of the Veteran’s entire history. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (the probative value of a physician’s statement is dependent, in part, upon the extent to which it reflects “clinical data or other rationale to support his opinion.”) The clinician addressed favorable evidence and distinguished her opinion from the Veteran’s VA psychiatrist and psychologist. She provided a well-reasoned rationale for all opinions reached. She concluded that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a PTSD diagnosis. The Board does not assign probative value to the VA treatment records which indicate a diagnosis of PTSD for the reasons enumerated by the October 2020 clinician. Although the word PTSD has been used in various VA treatment records, there is evidence that it was used as a means to note the Veteran’s subjective mental health history. There is no evidence that a thorough review of the Veteran’s symptoms met the PTSD criteria as required by VA regulations. Additionally, the Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertions that he suffers from PTSD. While the Veteran can competently report psychiatric symptoms, any opinion regarding whether those symptoms meet the DSM-5 criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD requires medical expertise under VA’s regulation. As such, the Board assigns no probative weight to the lay assertions that the Veteran currently suffers from PTSD. Accordingly, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence of record is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for PTSD, as he has not had the disorder at any time during the pendency of his claim. The “benefit-of-the-doubt” is not applicable, as there is not an approximate balance of evidence. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 2. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, other than PTSD. For the reasons explained below, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection is dismissed as moot. In that regard, the Veteran has mental health diagnoses of anxiety disorder and other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder. In an April 2019 rating decision, the RO rated the Veteran’s other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder along with his service-connected anxiety disorder. In other words, the Veteran’s other specified trauma and stressor-related disorder is already subject to compensation. See April 2019 rating Code sheet. Under 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. Here, the issue which the Veteran seeks service connection has already been rated as a service-connected disability. Therefore, the matter is dismissed as moot. Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Baskerville, LaRita 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.