Citation Nr: 21005740 Decision Date: 02/02/21 Archive Date: 02/02/21 DOCKET NO. 17-10 388 DATE: February 2, 2021 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with major depressive disorder is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has been diagnosed with PSTD and major depressive disorder by a psychologist. 2. The Veteran’s PTSD symptoms and major depressive disorder have been medically linked to an in-service stressor involving a helicopter crash. 3. The helicopter crash, and the Veteran’s statements related to that crash, are verified with credible supporting evidence that the claimed stressor occurred. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD with major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1976 to October 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in November 2020. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Service Connection Service connection generally will be awarded when a veteran has a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To establish service connection on a direct basis, the evidence must show: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a link between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in active service (the “nexus” element). Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990) (when the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, the claim will be granted). PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder The Veteran claims service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and major depressive disorder, based in part on an in-service stressor involving a helicopter crash, as described below. For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is established. To establish service connection for PTSD, there must be medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). With regard to medical evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), this regulation provides that, for VA purposes, all mental disorder diagnoses must conform to the Fifth Edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders (DMM-V). Diagnoses of PTSD are presumed to have been made in accordance with the DSM criteria. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 139-42 (1997). Concerning the requirement that there be credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred, there are exceptions in which a claimant’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). These exceptions include when PTSD is diagnosed during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service; when the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat; stressors related to being a prisoner of war; and stressors related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity (as defined in the regulation). Id. In all these cases, the claimed stressor must be consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran’s service. Id. The Veteran’s private treatment records show diagnoses of PTSD and major depressive disorder. In an August 2017 VA Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) form for PTSD, the Veteran’s private treating psychologist listed diagnoses of PTSD and major depressive disorder. These diagnoses are presumed to have been made in accordance with the DSM criteria. See Cohen, 10 Vet. App. at 139-42. The medical evidence establishes a link between the Veteran’s PTSD symptoms and major depressive disorder and an in-service stressor. Specifically, the Veteran states that he asked two students to fly as crewmen in his stead on a helicopter flight, as he did not feel comfortable flying with the pilot himself because he felt the pilot did not handle the aircraft responsibly. See November 2020 Hearing Transcript; January 2014 VA Mental Health Initial Evaluation Note. In this regard, a January 2017 private treatment record reflects that the Veteran knew the pilot to be “dangerous and out of control” at least a month prior to the crash. The helicopter crashed, killing all members on board, including the students whom the Veteran asked to be on that flight. See id. He saw the crash site shortly thereafter, and helped with cleaning up debris. See November 2020 Hearing Transcript. In the August 2017 DBQ, the private psychologist stated that the Veteran had PTSD and recurrent major depressive disorder “as a direct and causal result” of his military service, including the stressor involving the helicopter crash. Private treatment records dated in January and February 2017 reflect the Veteran’s recounting of this experience to his treating psychologist, and reporting symptoms and dreams related to the helicopter crash. The Veteran’s wife, who has been married to him since before his period of active service, described in a July 2019 letter how the Veteran’s behavior and mental health deteriorated following the helicopter crash. In sum, the medical evidence establishes a link between the Veteran’s symptoms and the in-service stressor, which is bolstered by lay witness testimony. Finally, there is credible supporting evidence to establish that the claimed stressor occurred. The Veteran’s service personnel records show that in 1978 he was assigned to Helicopter Training Squadron Eighteen (HT-18) in Milton, Florida, where Naval Air Station (NAS) Whiting Field is located. In early August 1978, he was promoted to be a NATOPS (Naval Air Training and Operating Procedures Standardization) instructor and assistant evaluator. His responsibilities included assisting with the administration of annual NATOPS evaluations, the conduct of flight checks, and the instruction of prospective aircrew candidates. Records from the Department of the Navy show that in late August 1978, a helicopter departed from NAS Whiting Field to conduct local area basic instrument syllabus training. With the pilot were two students in training. The helicopter crashed about an hour after takeoff, and all three crewmembers were killed. The name of the pilot is the same as the name provided by the Veteran in his April 2015 statement in support of the claim (VA Form 21-0781). Also of record is an April 2020 letter by an individual, K.H., who served with the Veteran as a naval aircrewman and NATOPS evaluator. In the letter, K.H. discusses the crash, and states that he remembers the Veteran finding a student volunteer to take the flight. The letter states that the Veteran “took the fatal crash very hard,” and “has had trouble dealing with [it] since he chose someone else to go on that fatal flight.” As the helicopter crash described by the Veteran has been verified with official service department records, is consistent with the time period, location, and circumstances of his service as an aircrewman and NATOPS instructor and assistant evaluator at NAS Whiting Field in August 1978, and as his account is supported by the April 2020 witness statement by K.H., who served with him, the Board finds that the Veteran’s reported stressor has been established with credible supporting evidence. The Board notes that the Veteran has related other in-service stressors. See November 2020 Hearing Transcript. Those stressors have not been verified, and do not fall within the exceptions to verification set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). As the claim may be granted on the above evidence, the Board will not address the other reported stressors in this decision. (Continued on following page)   Accordingly, the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the criteria for service connection for PTSD under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), and major depressive disorder, have been met; therefore, resolving any reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Rutkin, 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.