Citation Nr: 21011283 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 16-14 829 DATE: March 1, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for deep and non-linear scar on inner base of thumb, status post right middle finger avulsion with need for skin and subcutaneous tissue transplant from base of right thumb is remanded. FINDING OF FACT An in-service stressor sufficient to cause current PTSD has not been verified. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from October 1985 to October 1989 and from February 1991 to March 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran appeared at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2019. A transcript of the hearing is in the Veteran’s file. This matter was previously before the Board in May 2019. On remand the RO was directed to attempt to verify the Veteran's alleged stressors from all appropriate sources. A review of the record reveals that there has been substantial compliance with the Board’s prior remand directives as to the issue decided below. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 265 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a), a link, established by the medical evidence, between current symptoms and a stressor in service; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed stressor in service occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Unless PTSD is diagnosed in service and the in-service stressor is related to that service, or the in-service stressor was from the Veteran’s combat experience or the in-service stressor is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity or to a prisoner-of-war experience or to a personal assault, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone may not establish the occurrence of an alleged noncombat in-service stressor actually occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). Furthermore, in determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). In the December 2015 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed to have PTSD and major depressive disorder, but it was not possible to differentiate the symptoms attributable to each diagnosis. The Veteran stated that his PTSD is based on an incident during service where he heard gunshots and found a fellow marine who had been shot in the neck and was bleeding profusely. The Veteran attempted to provide aid, but the marine died in the Veteran’s arms. The Board notes that the examiner based the PTSD diagnosis on the Veteran's reported in-service stressor, and not on any documentation independently verifying the stressor. The in-service stressor was not related to combat or to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, a prisoner-of-war experience or to a personal assault. Thus, a PTSD diagnosis based on self-reported stressors by the Veteran cannot serve as the basis for service connection. VA has attempted to verify the stressors that the Veteran claims led to the PTSD. Initially, the Veteran provided the year and location of the incident, but the RO stated that more detail was needed to conduct a search to verify the stressor. The Veteran’s wife submitted statement in November 2015, indicating that the Veteran asked his representative about what evidence he needed to submit, but his representative could not tell him. In January 2016, the RO reviewed service treatment records and active duty personnel files but issued a formal finding that the information required to corroborate the stressful event was insufficient to allow for a meaningful search of records. In a November 2016 statement, the Veteran’s wife said that she met the Veteran in 1986 and the incident happened in early 1989. She stated her husband changed after the event and began drinking heavily and became violent, but he did not share with her what happened at that incident until many years after. At the February 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran was able to recall the date of the incident with more precision. He remembered the incident happened in March or April 1989 and that in May or June, the perpetrators were apprehended. The RO sent a request to the Marine Corps Archives and Specials Collections. A Command Chronology report for the period of January 1, 1989 to June 1989 provided by the United States Marine Corps for the Veteran's unit (Marine Aircraft Group-13, 3rd Marine Air Wing, Marine Corps Air Station, Yuma, Arizona) shows that in the "Sequential Listing of Significant Events" section of this report, there is no report of any Marine death or injury. Here, the Board finds that the Command Chronology reports, which are objective evidence provided by the United States Marine Corps, have more probative value than the Veteran's subjective lay statements. Although the Veteran contends that a fellow Marine was killed during service in 1989, the objective evidence which covers the period indicated by the Veteran, shows that there was no death of a Marine from January to June 1989. As the Command Chronology reports are objective reports, which are produced in official capacity with the purpose of recording the chronology of the United States Maine Corp units, when compared to the Veteran's subjective statements that came many years subsequent to the event he contends he witnessed, the probative value of the reports outweigh the probative value of the Veteran's subjective lay statements. Thus, the Board finds the objective Command Chronology reports are competent and credible evidence, which do not show a Marine died during the relevant period. In summary, the Veteran does have a current PTSD diagnosis, but the diagnosis is based on stressors that VA has been unable to verify; therefore, service connection for PTSD must be denied. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for deep and non-linear scar on inner base of thumb, status post right middle finger avulsion with need for skin and subcutaneous tissue transplant from base of right thumb is remanded. A review of the 3 different VA examinations reveals conflicting information about the Veteran's right-hand scars. The October 2006 VA examination showed the Veteran presented with 2 scars, 1 on the tip of the middle finger, which was painless and another on the palmar thenar of the right hand which had pain on deep palpitation. At the May 2015 VA examination, the examiner again noted 2 scars, at the tip of the middle finger and palmar base of right thumb, which was painful. At the November 2019 VA examination, however, the examiner noted 5 different scars, all of which were painful. She noted two on the base of the thumb which intersect to form a Y-shape, and three on the middle finger, which curve around and meet. As the evidence is conflicting as to the number of right-hand scars, it is unclear which scars must be considered when adjudicating this issue. As such, remand is warranted for clarification. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an appropriate VA examination to determine the current nature and severity of his scars involving his right hand. The claims file should be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. The examiner is specifically asked to identify the total number of scars on the Veteran’s right hand due to his service-connected disability. With each identified scar, the location and size of the scar, and whether the identified scar is painful, unstable, or both should be noted. An explanation that could account for the differing total number of scars present as described in previous reports also is requested. 2. After any further development as may be indicated has been accomplished, readjudicate the issue on appeal. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Jaigirdar, 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.