Citation Nr: 21011955 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 17-31 237 DATE: March 3, 2021 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's PTSD is related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304(f)(1), 4.125. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1960 to July 1962. The Veteran passed away in January 2018. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse and VA has recognized her as the substituted party in the instant case. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Lincoln, Nebraska. Jurisdiction subsequently was transferred to the RO in Oakland, California. The appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) via videoconference in October 2019 and a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. This matter was previously before the Board in January 2020 at which time it was remanded for further development. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) Generally, service connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. This means that the facts establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table). Service connection for PTSD in particular requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition under the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), or by findings supported in an examination report; 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), 4.125(a). Parenthetically, the Board notes that the DSM-IV was updated with the American Psychiatric Association's DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS, 5th Edition (2013) (DSM-V). Effective March 19, 2015, VA adopted as final, without change, its interim rule amending the portion of its Schedule for Rating Disabilities (i.e., 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.384, 4.125, 4.126, 4.127, and 4.130) dealing with mental disorders and its adjudication regulations to refer to certain mental disorders in accordance with DSM-V. See 53 Fed. Reg. 14308 (March 19, 2015). The provisions of the rule apply to all applications for benefits that are received by VA or that are pending before the agency of original jurisdiction on or after August 4, 2014. The RO certified the Veteran's appeal to the Board in June 2017. Hence, the DSM-5 is the governing directive for the Veteran's claim. Determinations as to service connection will be based on review of the entire evidence of record, to include all pertinent medical evidence. VA must also consider all favorable lay evidence of record. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); see also Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has actually observed and is within the realm of his or her personal knowledge). In addressing current disability, the evidence of record includes a May 2020 VA examination report which confirmed a current diagnosis of PTSD. VA treatment records also document a current diagnosis of PTSD. See November 2016 Monterey VA Clinic Records. In addressing in-service occurrence, the appellant contends that the Veteran developed PTSD related to two in-service stressors: (1) an incident in which the Veteran was refueling an ADS aircraft while the aircraft engine was still running and the nozzle let loose pouring fuel all over him; and (2) an incident in which the Veteran was thrown to the edge of a ship after an aircraft took off with the hose and catapult still attached. After reviewing the file, a May 2020 VA examiner determine that the Veteran's PTSD was related to or caused by his service, including his in-service stressors. See May 2020 VA Examination. Although the Veteran’s reported stressors were not formally corroborated by VA, the Board finds that the stressors are consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service, as the Veteran's DD Form 214 confirms service aboard the USS Ranger and a military occupational specialty (MOS) of dockman helper. The appellant testified during the October 2019 regarding the Veteran’s change in behavior since service. In addressing nexus, the May 2020 VA examiner opined that it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's PTSD was caused by or otherwise related to service. The examiner reasoned that there was no evidence of mental health symptoms prior to service. While child abuse was reported, the Veteran’s nightmares were reported as being present for a duration that implied onset after service (not before service), therefore it was reasonable to attribute his nightmares to his reported related trauma. The Veteran’s STRs were also silent for mental health conditions. The July 1960 entrance examination and report of medical history were silent for mental health conditions. The examiner further reasoned that the Veteran reported trauma in service and multiple lay statements described long term symptoms of PTSD that began in service. Specifically, the Veteran reported an incident in which the Veteran was refueling an ADS aircraft while the aircraft engine was still running and the nozzle came loose pouring fuel all over himself and his fellow serviceman, some of whom were burned quite badly, and an incident in which the Veteran was thrown to the edge of the ship after an aircraft took off with the hose and catapult still attached. Such incidents are consistent with possible events and circumstances of his MOS of dockman helper. Lay statements described symptoms related to a PTSD diagnosis including becoming upset, withdrawing, emotional overwhelm, agitation, triggers, nightmares, and suspiciousness, with a history of these beginning in service. Resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board construes the May 2020 VA opinion to establish an in-service diagnosis of PTSD, based on the Veteran’s reported symptoms regarding that time. As such, the Board considers the opinion to be highly probative. The opinion was based on a review of the claims file and relevant facts, and the examiner provided a detailed rationale. Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). There is no competent medical opinion of record to the contrary. In light of the foregoing and resolving doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran had PTSD related to service. Accordingly, the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; see generally Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001). S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Smith-Jennings, 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.