Citation Nr: 21009789 Decision Date: 02/23/21 Archive Date: 02/23/21 DOCKET NO. 18-25 536 DATE: February 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, which as likely as not had its onset during or is otherwise related to stressors in his active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW With resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the criteria for a grant of service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.303, 3.304(f). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1963 to May 1966, including service in Vietnam and Thailand. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) during an October 2020 hearing, and the hearing transcript is of record. This matter is on appeal from a December 2014 rating decision. Service Connection Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The benefit of the doubt rule provides that a veteran will prevail in a case where the positive evidence is in a relative balance with the negative evidence. Therefore, the Veteran prevails in a claim when (1) the weight of the evidence supports the claim or (2) when the evidence is in equipoise. It is only when the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence establishing a diagnosis of the condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressors actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressors. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted The Veteran contends that he has PTSD as a result of his active duty service in Vietnam. In September 2017, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD by a VA psychiatrist. Turning to whether the Veteran had an in-service stressor, the Veteran has stated that he served in the Republic of Vietnam. This was not verified by VA. He testified that he transported equipment to Vietnam, Thailand, and Laos. He stated that he was briefly in Da Nang to erect a radar unit, and that he was in a mortar attack. In October 2010, the Veteran submitted a statement from V. R., who served with him. V. R. stated that he had known the Veteran for 45 years, and that they served together in Thailand. V. R. stated that the Veteran was asked to shuttle between different bases in Thailand and Vietnam, and that most of their travel was on word of mouth orders because there was “no real full time commander” or personnel department. He stated that the Veteran had gone to Da Nang, and that V. R. asked him questions about it because he was going there as well. V. R. stated that the Veteran told him about the mortar attack, and he became very upset while recounting the event. V. R.’s statement is credible supporting evidence that the mortar attack occurred, and that as a result the Veteran was in combat. If the evidence establishes that the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy, and the claimed stressor is related to combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the Veteran’s service, his lay statements alone may establish its occurrence. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The lay evidence is sufficient to establish his stressor of being in a mortar attack while erecting a radar unit in Da Nang. At the October 2020 hearing, the Veteran testified that he had been diagnosed with PTSD in 2014 and has continued to receive treatment for this condition. The Veteran also testified that he unloaded body bags off of the helicopters, which was very upsetting. Additionally, the Veteran testified that one day when he was unloading a helicopter a young soldier got off of the helicopter and pulled a rifle to his head less than 30 feet away from the Veteran. The Veteran further testified that in November 1964 he was exposed to a mortar attack in Da Nang and still has a piece of shrapnel in his arm while erecting a radar unit. The Veteran testified that these events have “dug into” him deeply ever since his active duty service. January 2010 medical records from a mental health consult at the Memphis VA Medical Center reflect that the Veteran had a positive screen for PTSD and began attending a PTSD Education Group. Additionally, November 2012 medical records from a psychiatry attending at the Memphis VA Medical Center show that the Veteran received treatment for his PTSD symptoms. At the November 2012 examination, the Veteran discussed his traumatic memories from service and discussed restarting medication to help alleviate his PTSD symptoms. The Veteran was treated by a licensed professional counselor (LPC) at the Little Rock Vet Center in June of 2014. Using the DSM-5 criteria, the LPC diagnosed the Veteran with chronic PTSD. The LPC reflected that the Veteran witnessed a fellow solider die by suicide as he was unloading planes and helicopters. The LPC noted that the Veteran was exposed to multiple mortar attacks in Da Nang, and the Veteran was in fear for his life daily because of this. The LPC also observed that the Veteran assisted in loading and unloading body bags off helicopters, and that he often heard about his fellow soldiers being killed in action. Additionally, the Veteran reports feeling irritable much of the time and avoids people. The Veteran also reports being extremely hyper-vigilant of his surroundings to the point of causing extreme anxiety and is startled to exaggeration when he is surprised. The Veteran also describes having major issues with sleep disturbances at least weekly and has nightmares that seem like flashbacks that cause him to awake abruptly. The Veteran’s disturbances and symptoms of PTSD have persisted for many years, dating back to 1966, when his duty in the Vietnam War ended. The LPC in the June 2014 examination noted that the traumas the Veteran experienced while in Vietnam caused clinically significant distress and impairment in social, occupational, and other important areas of functioning. The LPC observed that the Veteran has a diagnosis of major chronic PTSD, which has affected his life greatly since combat service. Absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and in order to give the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that the Veteran’s lay statements at the October 2020 hearing and as relayed by VA treatment providers, are sufficient to establish a link between the Veteran’s claimed stressors and his active duty service. Medical evidence establishes a diagnosis of PTSD and a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressors. Although the stressor involving the mortar attack in Da Nang is the only corroborated stressor, it is sufficient to establish service connection for PTSD because it was cited as one of the causes of the Veteran’s PTSD. Therefore, corroboration of the other stressors is not needed. The LPC was particularly thorough in their discussion of the Veteran’s symptoms, their correspondence to the diagnostic criteria for PTSD, and the links between those symptoms and the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressors. In light of the totality of the circumstances and giving the Veteran the full benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has PTSD as a result of his service in Vietnam. Accordingly, the Board finds that granting service connection for PTSD is the decision that is most consistent with VA’s policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. DeVerter, 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.