Citation Nr: 21012742 Decision Date: 03/05/21 Archive Date: 03/05/21 DOCKET NO. 16-60 723 DATE: March 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), to include as due to military sexual trauma (MST), is denied. FINDING OF FACT The probative medical evidence of record reveals that the Veteran’s PTSD was not caused by military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD, to include as due to MST, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May to September 2009 and in the Rhode Island Army National Guard with confirmed periods of eligible service from March 5, 2011 to March 6, 2011 and from November 3, 2012 to November 4, 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing at the RO before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A transcript of this hearing is associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD, to include as due to MST. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires: (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, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498 (1995). Service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Board notes that that service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Active military, naval, or air service includes any period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty, or any period of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) during which the individual concerned was disabled or died from injury (but not disease) incurred in or aggravated in the line of duty. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(21), (22), (23), (24), 106; 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a), (c), (d). A National Guardsman seeking service connection for a Guard-related injury or disease must establish that they either became disabled or died from a disease or injury incurred during a period of ACDUTRA, or became disabled or died from an injury incurred during a period of INACDUTRA. 38 C.F.R. § 3.6. 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). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded the claimant. The Veteran contends that her PTSD is the result of military service due to MST. In particular, the Veteran has indicated that she suffered physical abuse from her ex-husband who was also a part of the National Guard and that she was also a victim of sexual assault from an individual who she met as part of the National Guard. See October 2020 Boarding Hearing Transcript. As an initial matter, the Board notes that Veteran has a current disability. An October 2016 VA treatment record documents a diagnosis of PTSD. To prevail on a claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD, a positive diagnosis of PTSD is not sufficient to be outcome determinative. There needs to be credible supporting evidence that a claimed in-service stressor occurred and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor. The Board notes that the Veteran’s PTSD stressors did not occur during active duty, ACDUTRA, or INACDUTRA. The Veteran does not assert that her PTSD is related to her active duty service from May to September 2009. Specifically, the Veteran testified during October 2020 Board hearing that her first instance of abuse was related to service because her ex-husband served as a National Guardsman and that after a training weekend, he came home and became abusive towards her, which consisted of physical and emotional abuse. He physically abused her on multiple occasions in 2010, and knocked her unconscious in 2011. The Veteran also testified that after she separated from her husband, in 2011, she had gone out with a group of people she had served with in the National Guard, and that she had been sexually assaulted by one of those individuals. The Board notes that the Veteran provided a police incident report that documents that the sexual assault took place on February 20, 2011. However, the Veteran’s service records do not show that she was serving on a period of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA when either the physical or sexual assaults occurred. Pertinently, the Board notes that during the October 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran specifically testified that neither of her assaults took place during her one weekend a month or two weeks periods of ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA. Therefore, the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s current PTSD is linked to her service because the evidence fails to show that the assaults took place during service and that during the October 2020 Board hearing, she specifically denied that the assaults took place during ACDUTRA or INACDUTRA as part of the National Guard. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD disability must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55. S. HENEKS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Hammad Rasul, 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.