Citation Nr: 21013229 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-37 420 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depressive disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, is related to an in-service incident and had its onset during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1974 to September 1976. The Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in June 2020. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. The Veteran’s claim is for entitlement to service connection for PTSD; however, the VA treatment records and private treatment records indicate the Veteran has depressive disorder, anxiety, a panic disorder, and PTSD. Therefore, the Board will recharacterize the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD as entitlement to service connection for any acquired psychiatric disorder, pursuant to Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (holding that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disability that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, reported symptoms, and the other information of record). Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD and depressive disorder, is granted. The Veteran asserts that his acquired psychiatric disorder was incurred in service, specifically as a result of an incident in May 1975. Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110 ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In addition to the general requirements for service connection, PTSD claims require: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition; (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). For the reasons discussed below, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, that is related to an in-service incident. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), 3.304. At the outset, the Board initially notes that the Veteran’s reported in-service stressor—witnessing the drowning death of another soldier—has been confirmed by VA. Indeed, in a May 1975 service treatment record, a medical provider stated the Veteran reported to the emergency room with a dead on arrival (DOA) drowning that evening. The medical provider stated the Veteran was very nervous and was allowed to vent. In a February 2014 statement, recounted the incident, and noted that since then, he has experienced suicidal thoughts, nightmares, and PTSD. In November 2014, VA confirmed the casualty drowning of the soldier in question in 1975. Thus, the key question at issue in this case is whether the Veteran has a current psychiatric disability related to this in-service stressor. In a December 2014 VA PTSD examination, the examiner indicated the Veteran has a mental disorder, but concluded that the Veteran has a non-service related diagnosis of depressive disorder that is related to personal and marital issues rather than military service. In a July 2015 letter, the Veteran’s VA treating psychiatrist, Dr. D.K., provided a contrary opinion. Dr. D.K. indicated that he completed a standard instrument to assess the Veteran for PTSD, and based on the completion of the instrument, the report of the traumatic incident, and the impairments the Veteran reports, he opined that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran had PTSD that was caused by his in-service stressor. In June 2020, the Veteran submitted another positive medical opinion from Dr. R.A.S., who examined the Veteran and diagnosed him with PTSD, panic disorder with agoraphobia, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. Dr. R.A.S. opined that the Veteran’s disabilities were as likely as not a direct result of his experiences in service. The medical provider based this opinion on the Veterans description of the in-service incident, symptoms since service, suicide attempts, May 1975 service treatment record emergency notation, and the above-referenced July 2015 letter from Dr. D.K. Notably, at his June 2020 Board hearing, the Veteran credibly testified to the May 1975 in-service incident. He stated the May 1975 incident affected him for his entire life. He stated he continues to have nightmares. Hearing Transcript (T.) at 6. The Veteran stated that he attempted suicide in 1977. T. at 9. The Veteran stated he developed issues with alcohol and self-medication due to survivor’s guilt. Id. The Veteran stated he sought treatment for alcohol abuse and psychiatric treatment from 1984 to 2008. T. at 9-10. Based on the Veteran’s credible assertions and descriptions of medical history, the supporting evidence indicating that the Veteran experienced an in-service stressor, and the favorable medical opinion evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence favors a finding that the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, that is related to service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. The benefit sought on appeal is granted. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Thompson, 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.