Citation Nr: 21006002 Decision Date: 02/03/21 Archive Date: 02/03/21 DOCKET NO. 18-37 382 DATE: February 3, 2021 ORDER The claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder, is related to his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154; 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Navy from April 1986 to February 1994. He received the Sea Service Ribbon and Meritorious Unit Commendation Medal, among other commendations. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an April 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in February 2021 with his spouse, who also testified on the Veteran’s behalf. A written transcript of the hearing has yet to be associated with the claims file; however, because the Board is granting the claim in full, there is no prejudice to the Veteran in proceeding without the transcript. The Board notes at the outset that the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that a claim of service connection encompasses all pertinent symptomatology, regardless of how that symptomatology is diagnosed. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). As such, in light of Clemons and the current evidence of record, the issue on appeal has been expanded and recharacterized to include any acquired psychiatric disorder, and to specifically include PTSD and depressive disorder. 1. The claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder. The Veteran contends that he has a psychiatric disorder due to his military service. Specifically, he contends he has PTSD, anxiety, and depression because of multiple traumatic events he experienced during active duty. See October 2016 Fully Developed Claim application; October 2016 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD; July 2018 Form 9 Appeal. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 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 injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD, specifically, requires: (1) medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and the in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In PTSD claims, the Board is required to evaluate evidence based on places, types, and circumstances of service, as shown by military records and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 66 (1993); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, (1990). Board determinations with respect to the weight and credibility of evidence are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. In the present matter, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and a depressive disorder, related to his active duty service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), 3.304. First, the Board notes that the credible and probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD and other recurrent depressive disorders. See e.g., Caribou VA Clinic PTSD Focused Psychological Evaluation conducted in October, November, and December 2018 (hereafter, Caribou psychological evaluation); May 2018 VA examination. Next, VA has already conceded that the Veteran was exposed to traumatic events during his active service and the Board finds that there is credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressors occurred. See May 2018 Statement of the Case (SOC) (finding that service department records confirmed the loss of four lives as a result of a helicopter crash on the USS Lexington in 1989). The Board further finds the Veteran’s lay statements of record regarding his exposure to this and other in-service events to be competent, credible evidence in support of his claim. See Veteran’s October 2016 PTSD Statement Finally, the Board finds that the Veteran’s claimed psychiatric condition is etiologically related to his active duty service and claimed stressors. The evidence of record reflects that the Veteran had no identified psychiatric condition at his enlistment. See March 1986 Report of Medical Examination. During his active service, however, the Veteran sought and received treatment for psychiatric symptoms, including depressive symptoms, and was assessed with dysthymia. See May and June 1992 Service Treatment Records (STRs). In further support of the instant claim, the Veteran submitted the Caribou psychological evaluation, which was conducted by a staff psychologist over multiple appointment dates in late 2018. According to this psychologist, the Veteran’s exposure to a particular traumatic in-service event “was serious enough that [the Veteran] has developed the gamut of PTSD symptoms.” This examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and other recurrent depressive disorders. The Board finds this examination report and its concluding opinions to be probative evidence in support of the Veteran’s service connection claim. The Board acknowledges that the VA compensation and pension examinations completed in January 2017 and May 2018 concluded that the Veteran’s psychiatric conditions were less likely than not related to his active service, opining, among other things, that the Veteran’s conditions were related to problems with intimacy after his discharge from service. The Board finds these opinions less probative than the most recent examination completed in December 2018 by the Caribou VA Clinic. The Caribou VA examiner conducted a thorough review of the Veteran’s psychiatric treatment history, of his service record and the traumatic events claimed, and of his functioning prior to and after service. The examiner also conducted the examination over multiple dates and considered the Veteran’s own lay reports of his chronic symptoms before providing a reasoned rationale for her medical conclusions. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 301 (2008). In sum, upon review of the entire record, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence establishes that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder, to be related to his active service. Accordingly, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Hart, 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.