Citation Nr: 21012190 Decision Date: 03/03/21 Archive Date: 03/03/21 DOCKET NO. 20-04 675 DATE: March 3, 2021 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his PTSD is at least as likely as not related to an in-service stressor event. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1963 to September 1966. The Veteran and his wife provided testimony before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a January 2021 Board hearing. A complete transcript is of record. Service Connection Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Further, service connection for PTSD generally requires 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 in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). Service connection for PTSD is granted. The Veteran asserts that his PTSD is the result of his active duty service. Specifically, he asserts that he witnessed his Sergeant attempt to commit suicide, which has caused him significant stress since that time. A careful review of the Veteran’s post-service treatment records shows that he has been diagnosed with PTSD by both private and VA medical professionals. See VA Treatment Record dated April 15, 2015 and Private Treatment Record dated July 7, 2015. As such, the Board concedes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis for PTSD. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran and his wife have provided lay statements describing his difficulty coping with the events that took place during his active duty service. The Veteran’s wife reported that in the early years of their dating and marriage, she noticed that he was hypervigilant and very reluctant to communicate his feelings. See Buddy Statement received May 31, 2016. The Veteran reported that the in-service stressors changed him forever and when he returned from service, he drank too much. He attributed his PTSD and hypervigilance to the in-service stressors and has been trying to cope with those issues. See Correspondence received July 12, 2016. The Veteran and his wife provided credible testimony at the January 2021 Board hearing. The Veteran and his wife described the in-service stressor event. They described how the Veteran found his Sergeant lying under a Jeep, with a tarp covering it. The Veteran pulled his Sergeant out from under the Jeep and attempted CPR and obtained help. Subsequent to the incident, the Veteran inquired with his superiors about the status of the Sergeant, but was told to stop asking and he was never able to find out what happened to him. During the hearing, the Veteran’s wife presented a copy of a Camp Rice yearbook, which placed the Veteran in Korea, where the stressor event took place. Based on the Veteran’s account of the in-service stressor event and his wife’s testimony that she has heard about the story since the 1970s, the VLJ stated that the wife has corroborated the Veteran’s account and from an evidentiary standpoint, VA conceded that the in-service stressor event indeed took place. Here, the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) and military personnel records do not specifically document the incident where the Veteran reported witnessing his Sergeant’s attempted suicide. The Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC) was unable to verify that the Veteran was at Camp Rice, Korea, during the time frame of his stressor statement and concluded that the stressor could not be verified. See Correspondence received September 27, 2016. Although there is no documented evidence of the in-service stressor event in the Veteran’s claims file, the Veteran’s account has been corroborated by his wife, as explained by the undersigned VLJ at the January 2021 Board hearing. As such, the Board concedes that there is credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred. The Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD and he has credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor event occurred; therefore, he must now show that there is a link, established by medical evidence, between his current symptoms and the in-service stressor event. As will be discussed, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence supports finding that the Veteran’s PTSD is due to his reported in-service stressor. After a careful review of the Veteran’s VA treatment records, it shows that he has been treated for PTSD since 2015. Since 2015, he has diligently attended mental health therapy, on average, about once every two months. Further, in addition to the therapy sessions, he has also attended separate individual sessions that focused on cognitive, behavioral, and interpersonal interventions. He has consistently reported that he thinks about and is affected by the stressor event. His treating mental health physician reported that his PTSD was secondary to witnessing his Sergeant attempt suicide in Korea. See VA Treatment Record dated December 10, 2018. The Board notes that the Veteran has also received mental health treatment from a private family therapist. The private therapist reported that the Veteran experienced trauma in the military and recommended individual psychotherapy to develop coping strategies and processing the trauma he has endured. Here, the weight of the evidence supports a finding that the Veteran’s in-service stressor event has been sufficiently corroborated. The Veteran and his wife credibly testified about the in-service stressor and how it has affected him. In addition, the Veteran has consistently reported the stressor event during his mental health treatment. Notably, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that lay statements made in connection with medical treatment may be afforded greater probative value than later statements made with self-interest in mind. See Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1997). As such, the Board finds the statements made in connection with medical treatment to be competent, credible, and afforded great probative weight. Further, the Veteran’s treating mental health professional at VA has attributed his PTSD to his reported in-service stressor. Given the Board’s finding that the Veteran’s reported stressor event occurred and has been diagnosed with PTSD, which has been found to be based on his active duty service, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD is granted. MATTHEW W. BLACKWELDER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Fu, 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.