Citation Nr: 21013647 Decision Date: 03/10/21 Archive Date: 03/10/21 DOCKET NO. 13-08 288 DATE: March 10, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD conforming to the DSM-V. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has an in-service stressor related to his PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an award of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1967 to October 1971. After his separation from active duty service, he also served in the Air Force Reserves from October 1971 to September 1973 and the Army National Guard from September 1973 to September 1979. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2009 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The issue on appeal was previously before the Board in February 2018, when it was remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for additional development. In the February 2018 remand, the Board directed the AOJ to request that the Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), or other appropriate repository, investigate and attempt to verify the Veteran’s reports of an aircraft accident at Dyess Air Force Base in 1971. The Board also directed the AOJ to schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his PTSD. The claims file reflects that the AOJ requested the subject information from the JSRRC and afforded the Veteran a VA examination in relation to his claim for service connection for PTSD. Therefore, there has been at least substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives. See D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board notes that the Veteran indicated in multiple statements that he believes that records relevant to his claim were either lost or destroyed, specifically asserting that such records were destroyed in the 1973 fire at the Military Personnel Records Center in Missouri. When there is evidence that a Veteran’s service records have been lost or destroyed, VA has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule, to assist a claimant in developing his claim, and to explain its findings and conclusions. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46, 51 (1996); O’Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005). At the time of the Board’s February 2018 remand, the Veteran was represented by the Texas Veterans Commission. However, in a November 2019 statement he indicated that he no longer wished the Texas Veterans Commission to represent him in the instant claim. The record does not reflect that he subsequently appointed a new representative. Service Connection Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110,1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service injury or disease. See e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). The requirement of a current disability is satisfied when the claimant is shown to have the disability either at the time he files his claim for service connection, or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to final adjudication. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). When the record contains a recent diagnosis of a disability prior ot the filing of a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that must be addressed in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013). The term “disability” as used for VA purposes generally contemplates functional impairment resulting in loss of earning capacity. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Service connection for PTSD has its own specified set of criteria, and requires (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD (presumed to include the adequacy of symptomatology and the sufficiency of a claimed in-service stressor in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a)); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal relationship between the current symptomatology and the specific claimed inservice stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Board notes that the Veteran indicated, including in a September 2020 statement, that 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(1) is applicable in the instant case. That section states that in certain instances, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the Veteran’s service, the Veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. However, the Board notes that the provision only applies to service connection for PTSD where the evidence establishes a diagnosis of PTSD during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(1). As the evidence fails to show that the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD during his military service, that provision is inapplicable herein. In adjudicating a claim for service connection for PTSD, the Board is required to evaluate evidence based on the places, types, and circumstances of service, as shown by military records and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 66 (1993); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The evidence necessary to establish the occurrence of an in-service stressor for PTSD will vary depending on whether the Veteran “engaged in combat with the enemy.” Id. If a Veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or the claimed stressors are not related to combat, and the stressor is not related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, then the Veteran’s testimony alone is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of the claimed stressors. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997); Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163 (1996). Service department records must support, and not contradict, the claimant’s testimony regarding non-combat stressors. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283 (1994). The question of whether a Veteran was exposed to a stressor in service is a factual one, and VA adjudicators are not bound to accept uncorroborated accounts of stressors or medical opinions based upon such accounts. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991), aff’d on reconsideration, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991). Whether a stressor was of sufficient gravity to cause or support a diagnosis of PTSD is a question of fact for medical professionals. Whether the evidence establishes the occurrence of stressors, however, is a question of fact for adjudicators. Disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall also be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show: (1) that a current disability exists; and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310; Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). A layperson is generally incapable of opining on matters requiring medical knowledge. Routen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 183, 186 (1997), aff’d sub nom., Routen v. West, 142 F.3d 1434 (Fed. Cir. 1998). However, lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when: (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (e.g., a broken leg, separated shoulder, pes planus (flat feet), varicose veins, tinnitus (ringing in the ears), etc.), (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In essence, lay testimony is competent when it pertains to the readily observable features or symptoms of injury or illness and “may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection.” Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). A determination as to whether medical evidence is needed to demonstrate that a Veteran presently has the same condition he or she had in service or during a presumptive period, or whether lay evidence will suffice, depends on the nature of the Veteran’s present condition (e.g., whether the Veteran’s present condition is of a type that requires medical expertise to identify it as the same condition as that in service or during a presumption period, or whether it can be so identified by lay observation). See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 310 (2007). Thus, medical evidence is not always or categorically required when the determinative issue involves either medical diagnosis or etiology, but rather such issue may, depending on the facts of the particular case, be established by competent and credible lay evidence under 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). See Davidson, supra. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. See also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Service connection for PTSD. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for PTSD, as the condition is related to traumatic events that he experienced during his active duty military service. The Board notes that the Veteran’s claim was previously recharacterized as service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. The record reflects that the Veteran currently has a diagnosis of PTSD conforming with the DSM-V. Herein, the Board will refer to PTSD to broadly construe the entirety of his reported mental health symptomology. The record reflects that he has a current diagnosis of PTSD, and an April 2018 VA authorized examiner indicated that his PTSD was related to his claimed in-service stressors. Therefore, the remaining question before the Board is whether the occurrence of the Veteran’s claimed in-service is supported by credible evidence. The Veteran indicated that his PTSD is due to three events which occurred during his military service: (1) involvement in an accident aboard an aircraft returning to Dyess Air Force Base from North Carolina, (2) performing a temporary duty assignment (TDY) in Da Nang, Vietnam where he loaded caskets onto aircraft for transport to the United States, and (3) a prolonged assignment as a driver at Bolling Air Force Base, Washington, D.C., where his duties included transporting grieving relatives of deceased service members to funerals at Arlington National Cemetery. 1) Bolling Air Force Base assignment. The Veteran’s service personnel records reflect that he served as a vehicle operator at Bolling Air Force Base in Washington, D.C. from April 1968 to August 1969. A performance report covering the period from October 1967 to November 1969 indicated that the Veteran was a vehicle operator and personal driver for the Chief of Staff at the Iceland Defense Force Headquarters. The reporting official noted that he drove numerous visiting dignitaries and high-ranking Icelandic government officials, and that he willingly volunteered for extra tasks when he was not performing his primary duty. A September 1968 Letter of Appreciation to the Commander of Bolling Air Force Base noted that the Veteran helped to provide transportation to members of Congress, professional staff members, and Legislative Liaison escort officers participating in a recently held Air Force event. A performance report covering the period from November 1969 to May 1970 documented that the Veteran was a base vehicle operator and personal driver for the Chief of Staff at the Iceland Defense Force Headquarters. The reporting official indicated that he drove both United States and foreign dignitaries as part of his duties. A performance report covering the period from May 1970 to August 1970 indicated that the Veteran was a base vehicle operator and personal driver for the Chief of Staff at the Iceland Defense Force Headquarters. The indorsing official noted that he volunteered to drive visiting American ambassadors and other foreign dignitaries. A performance report covering the period from August 1970 to 1971 stated that the Veteran’s duties as a vehicle operator were to operate all types of material handling equipment and other vehicles assigned. He operated vehicles and equipment for recover of loads on the “Drop Zone,” cleaned, serviced, and performed operator maintenance on all vehicles assigned. In a September 2009 VA psychology note, the Veteran indicated that he had started to experience frequent nightmares and other symptoms associated with his funeral detail. In his Notice of Disagreement (NOD) received by VA in March 2010, the Veteran stated that he was assigned as a vehicle operator at Bolling Airforce Base in Washington, D.C. from approximately April 1968 to July 1969. He reported that his duties included assignment as a military escort for burial detail at Arlington National Cemetery, where he transported “grieving relatives of [ ] deceased veterans to and from the area airports, transporting them to and from the family visiting quarters to funeral service, and to meet whatever their needs were after the funeral service.” He further indicated that he made sure that the individuals boarded their plane and that the plane took off. He noted that although others assigned to the same duty were rotated after 30 days, he continued on the same assignment for approximately 15 months. He claimed that he experienced “tremendous emotional feelings” related to his duties and seeing what the families were going through, and stated that at the end of the assignment, he was an “emotional disaster.” He stated that during his next two assignments, in Iceland and at Dyess Air Force Base, he sometimes experienced thoughts of the funerals he attended at Arlington National Cemetery and experienced difficulty sleeping and a loss of appetite. In a March 2011 statement, the Veteran claimed that his PTSD symptoms were the direct result of his 15-month assignment on funeral detail while serving in the military. In a statement received by VA in May 2011, the Veteran’s friend indicated that he had known the Veteran since approximately 1963, and noted that they lived in the same neighborhood until 1967. The friend stated that after returning from his own service in the United States Marine Corps in 1975, he and the Veteran renewed their friendship and would often drive together to appointments at the local VA clinic. The friend claimed that after the Veteran completed his military service, he was a “different individual.” The friend reported that the Veteran told him about his duties in Washington, D.C., and about his “sadness being a military escort at Arlington National…” for 15 months straight. The friend stated that the Veteran also informed him that he was involved in an airplane crash at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, and came close to dying. The friend noted that his “conversation would sometimes drift in and out about his TDY duty in Vietnam,” where he would load caskets onto aircraft returning to the United States. In a November 2014 statement, another of the Veteran’s friends indicated that he had known the Veteran since 1962. The friend recounted that he joined the Navy in March 1969 and was billeted at Bolling Air Force Base. He claimed that he encountered the Veteran during his first week at Bolling wearing a “class A uniform,” and the Veteran conveyed that he was on burial detail. The friend stated that he did not ask any questions about the topic, but noted that the Veteran never smiled and always seemed serious, which he suspected was due to the Veteran’s burial duties. The friend claimed that he next saw the Veteran in approximately 1977, and noted that he confided that he experienced nightmares that were related to funerals. The friend indicated that he again ran into the Veteran at a high school reunion in 2012, and the Veteran discussed his feelings of anxiety and claimed he could not stop thinking about “the military funerals he went through while in Washington, D.C. and the caskets he had to carry.” In an April 2018 VA authorized examination, the Veteran stated that between 1968 and 1969, he was stationed in Washington, D.C. and served as a funeral escort for 16 months, whereas most individuals only served a few weeks. His wife also noted that he did not like funerals. The examiner indicated that his claimed stressor did not meet Criterion A (i.e., is it adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD) under the DSM-5 standards. 2) Da Nang, Vietnam TDY. The Veteran’s service personnel records indicate that his only foreign service was from August 1969 to August 1970 in Iceland, and specifically note that he did not participate in any foreign service TDY, or otherwise in a formal TDY within the United States. His service personnel records do not reflect that he ever served in Vietnam. In an April 2008 VA psychology note, the Veteran stated that he was not sleeping well and felt that he may not want to go to sleep due to having a dream about watching himself in a coffin. He indicated that he loaded coffins in cargo planes while in Vietnam, and stated that he loaded coffins for approximately 10 days. He noted that, “as soon as one plane took off, they started loading another.” He stated that, “he gave up trying to count all the bodies,” and remembered seeing the long lines of trailers loaded with coffins, which he likened to a row of ants. In a February 2009 statement, the Veteran reported that he was called to an emergency meeting at the “aerial port hanger” and was informed that he was going on a special TDY. He indicated that TDYs were common for his unit, and he assumed that it would be another training exercise. He stated that he was ordered to line up with the others in his unit by rank and start the process of filling out paperwork, which included a last will and testament. He claimed that this was not something that he had done on previous assignments. He noted that he was then ordered to return to the barracks and pick up his duffle bag and return to the hangar as quickly as possible. He indicated that when he returned to the hangar he was assigned to an aircraft to load, and after loading the aircraft was told to go to dinner and then return to the hangar. He stated that he boarded the plane and took off at approximately 11:00 p.m., with no information detailing the nature or location of the assignment. He claimed that when the plane landed, and he was told that they were in California but was instructed not to leave the aircraft. He indicated that the plane took off again approximately one hour later for its final destination, Da Nang, Vietnam. The Veteran stated that after landing, he was taken to the visiting airmen quarters and processed. He noted that he was given a job assignment that evening, and that his squad was assigned to loading C-130 and C-141 aircraft. He claimed that he reported to the flight line the next day and was surprised to learn that his duty for the day was to load caskets. He indicated that he had not seen so many caskets at one time, and that they were brought in on flatbed trailers so that they could be loaded to return home. He reported that the loading of caskets continued for several hours, and noted that they also loaded other equipment. He stated that he was picked up in a truck and returned to the visiting airman quarters at approximately 8:00 p.m. He indicated that his duties the next day included unloading aircraft and loading more caskets, and that he was also assigned to move ammunition and other equipment for a few days. The Veteran claimed that he was again assigned to load caskets during his second week in Vietnam, which were again brought in on flat bed trailers, and recalled that while he loaded them, he would sometimes get off of his forklift and straighten out flags that were not properly secured.. He stated that after loading his pallets of caskets, he noted a flatbed trailer at the end of the line loaded with one single casket strapped down. He claimed that his commanding officer advised him that the casket contained the remains of a female, and directed that no other casket was to be loaded on top of hers and that she needed to be placed in a separate place in the aircraft. He noted that he was eventually informed that the TDY was finished and he instructed those under him to get packed and be ready to go back to Dyess Air Force Base at a moment’s notice, because he was not sure of the date and time that they were going to leave. The Veteran indicated that while loading caskets he was overcome with feelings of sadness and guilt when thinking about the deaths of his fellow service members. He claimed that he had friends who had died during the Vietnam War, and that he had attended their funerals while on leave. He stated that he took particular care in loading the caskets out of respect for the individuals within and for their sacrifice, and noted that he was haunted by the experience. He reported that his duties spurred flashbacks of his assignment as a vehicle driver to funeral details at Arlington National Cemetery. In a statement received by VA in March 2010, the Veteran stated that during his TDY mission to Vietnam, his primary duty was to load caskets returning to the United States via Hawaii. He noted that, at the time, he wondered who would be doing his previous assignment at Arlington National Cemetery and help bury the soldiers in the caskets. He claimed that he refused to attend any funeral for a family member or friend during his 38-year marriage to his wife. In the statement received by VA in May 2011 referenced above, the Veteran’s friend additionally stated that their “conversation would sometimes drift in and out about his TDY duty in Vietnam,” where he would load caskets onto aircraft returning to the United States. In an August 2013 VA psychiatry note, the Veteran indicated that he went to Vietnam, and that he was “assigned to body recovery after firefights.” He noted that he would load bodies in body bags and caskets. He stated that prior to going to Vietnam, he was “assigned to Arlington Cemetery,” and reported that he was “kept there 16 months,” but was only supposed to be there for four months. In a November 2013 response to a search request from the JSRRC, an archivist for the Air Force Historical Research Agency stated that there was no mention of sending any personnel from the 10th Aerial Port Squadron, located at Dyess Air Force Base, on TDY to Vietnam for the period from October through December 1970. The archivist noted that there was a deployment to South Carolina, but none for Vietnam. The archivist indicated that there was also no mention of sending any personnel to Vietnam in records from the higher headquarters, the 1st Aerial Port Group. The archivist further indicated that research on the official unit histories of the units stationed at Da Nang Air Base in Vietnam, conducted through the local Da Nang unit, the 15th Aerial Port Squadron, did not show that there were any TDY personnel associated with that unit for the period from October 1970 through December 1970. The archivist noted that the higher headquarters for the 15th Aerial Port Squadron, the 2nd Aerial Port Group, likewise did not have any record of TDY personnel during the relevant period, and that records for the 366th Tactical Fighter Wing, which the 15th Aerial Port Squadron directly supported, did not mention any Aerial Port Squadron TDY assistance in the official unit history. The archivist stated that a listing of casualties that were processed in December 1970 through Da Nang showed a total of three deaths for that month. The archivist noted that all American human remains in Vietnam would have been sent to the United States Army Mortuary at Tan Son Nhut Air Base for processing and shipment back to the United States. The archivist indicated that this was seemingly contrary to the Veteran’s report that he spent a significant amount of time loading caskets while in Vietnam. The archivist stated that some caskets were likely sent to Da Nang for possible use, but if the Veteran had spent several days loading caskets, they were empty and were sent to the wrong air base. The archivist highlighted that all human remains going back to the United States left Vietnam from Tan Son Nhut on C-141s. In a December 2013 VA trauma consultation response note, the Veteran reported that he experienced a mortar attack while in Vietnam. He stated that he was “told by a Major to take a different position from what he had been previously instructed,” and noted that the Major was killed by the mortar. He indicated that he clearly remembered what the Major looked like. The treating clinician documented that the Veteran claimed to have taught himself lucid dreaming strategies which caused his dreams about funerals and coffins to evolve over the years. The clinician stated that his claimed stressors regarding the plane crash and mortar attack met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criterion A of a traumatic stressor, but noted that his experience of working with families during his funeral detail did not meet criterion A. In an October 2015 VA psychology note, the Veteran claimed that he took a trip to San Antonio recently and stopped at Lackland Air Force Base, where he “encountered the same plane he was in during a plane crash.” In a December 2015 VA psychology note, the Veteran reported that November and December were particularly difficult months for him each year, due to December 27th being the anniversary date of when he deployed to Vietnam. In a November 2016 VA psychology note, the Veteran indicated that he believed he might have seasonal affective disorder, but noted that his symptoms could be related to his approaching anniversary of going to Vietnam. He claimed that the anniversary was in December, and that his symptoms started in late October and lasted until late March each year. In a January 2017 VA treatment record, the Veteran indicated that he was in Vietnam for approximately six weeks, and that he “loaded bodies on the airplane” as a heavy equipment operator. He claimed that he operated a forklift and would put eight coffins into a cargo plane with each load, putting four to eight loads on the plane. He reported that “he buried 1,000 people or more,” but did not see the bodies. He stated that he “did body recovery [three] or [four] times and sometimes the bodies were burned or dismembered.” He noted anger at not having been recognized for his service in Vietnam, and acknowledged that he was not in combat in the sense of attacking or evading enemy forces. In an April 2018 VA authorized examination, the Veteran claimed that he was deployed to Da Nang, Vietnam in December 1970 for 18 to 19 days. He indicated that his “dut[ies] in the war were to load aircraft and as body recovery.” He stated that he was sent to recover bodies “out in the field,” and that some of the bodies had been dead for some time or burned. He reported that he would pick up the bodies and bring them into the morgue. He noted that on one occasion, he picked up an individual by his arm, “and his sleeve and his skin slid off, and I can still smell that, and I try to wash my hands[.] I think it’s in my mind.” 3) Dyess Air Force Base incident. In a February 2008 VA physician new patient note, the Veteran reported that he was involved in a near-fatal accident “in [V]ietnam.” He indicated that he had recurring dreams about the aircraft that he was in during the accident crashing and exploding into a fireball. He stated that even though he survived the incident, he dreamt that he was on fire. He noted that the dream was very distressing, and that he had problems associated with it that he had not previously discussed with anyone. In a March 2008 VA psychology note, the treating clinician noted that the Veteran had symptoms of PTSD related to a crash landing when transporting heavy machinery from North Carolina to Texas during his service. He stated that when preparing to land, the pilot made a pass around the airport and dropped fuel. He indicated that the “runway was foamed,” and that he thought he was going to die, but the pilot landed the aircraft and he exited the plane. He reported that although there was no fire during the incident, in his mind, he could see flames and feel the heat. He noted that his first dream where he was on fire came approximately a week to 10 days after the incident. He claimed that he also saw himself standing over a coffin with the lid shut in the dream, and stated that he felt disappointed that he was not killed in that crash. He indicated that he had friends who died in Vietnam. The treating clinician diagnosed him with PTSD. In an April 2008 VA psychiatry note, the Veteran stated that he had a bad accident in 1971. He indicated that he was in a plane that almost crashed, and that he felt his life was in danger. In a February 2009 statement, the Veteran indicated that he believed that the claimed aircraft accident was in 1971 at Dyess Air Force Base in Abilene, Texas. He stated that he and his crew were to fly back to Texas after loading an aircraft. He noted that two airmen were working on the wheel well of the nose gear of the plane prior to takeoff. He reported that he decided to take a nap during the flight and awoke to a voice over the intercom announcing that they would be landing in approximately 25 to 30 minutes. He claimed that after he felt the plane beginning to descend, he again heard a voice over the intercom informing the passengers that there was an electrical problem in the nose gear of the aircraft, and it would be necessary to first get a visual from the control tower before landing. He noted that he could see the ground and hanger at the time, and claimed that he began to hear “crackling” just before the pilot announced that the nose gear would not come down. The Veteran indicated that he could see the fear on the faces of the airmen aboard the plane and he had all of “[his] people” take their blankets from their packs and soak them with water by sitting under the “water buffalo.” He stated that a staff sergeant informed him that the pilot was trying to jettison fuel from the wings and the load master advised him to prepare for a hard nose landing with the possibility of a fire. He indicated that he was able to see fire trucks and an ambulance on the runway and believed that he could see foam that had been applied. He claimed that tail of the aircraft was opened by the load master for a quick exit and he had thoughts about crashing and exploding into a fireball. He noted that he could see two of his men crying as he felt the rear wheels of the aircraft make contact with the runway. The Veteran stated that he could hear noise coming from the nose gear as they “skidd[ed] on the runway,” and claimed that he thought the wings of the plane would break off as the aircraft was rocking. He reported that he felt the plane slow down and indicated that he could see fire trucks and an ambulance “rolling behind the aircraft.” He noted that he heard a loud noise and then the plane came to a stop. He claimed that he was in constant fear during the incident, and that he had thoughts of everyone on the plane dying and of people attending his funeral. In a July 2009 statement, the Veteran claimed that while stationed at Dyess Air Force Base in 1971, he was ordered on a TDY training mission to North Carolina. In an August 2009 statement, the Veteran’s wife indicated that she noticed a change in his personality after he was discharged from the military, and noted that he was withdrawn and was constantly alert. In a statement from a friend of the Veteran received by VA in July 2011, the friend indicated that he attended high school with the Veteran prior to 1967. The friend stated that he saw the Veteran in 1971 at Dyess Air Force Base while serving a TDY there. The friend noted that he saw the Veteran scolding a new airman, and claimed that he exhibited a different attitude from what he previously knew. The friend indicated that the Veteran was “very much affected by the war events….” In the statement received by VA in May 2011 referenced above, the Veteran’s friend also reported that the Veteran also informed him that he was involved in an airplane crash at Dyess Air Force Base in Texas, and came close to dying. In his March 2013 VA Form 9, the Veteran stated that following the claimed plane crash, the aircraft was repaired and mission ready within the same week. In a December 2013 VA trauma consultation response note, the Veteran stated that he was involved in a plane crash while at Dyess Air Force Base due to malfunctioning nose gear. He reported fearing that he would die, but having to organize the evacuation of the passengers upon landing. He indicated experiencing a salty taste in his mouth, and claimed that he vomited after he was off the plane. In an April 2018 VA authorized examination, the Veteran reported that he was involved in an airplane crash where he thought that he was going to die. He stated that while the aircraft he was in during the incident was coming in for landing, the pilot announced over the speaker that the plane had a malfunction and the nose gear would not lock. He further stated that the pilot announced that they would fly around the control tower, and that the tower confirmed that the nose gear was only three-quarters of the way down. He claimed that the pilot flew around for an hour in an attempt to burn fuel, and that “you could see the jet fuel coming out.” The Veteran noted that the load master told him to secure all of the people in the plane because they were going to land. He indicated that the aircraft landed with “the ramp” open, and stated that he could see the ambulance and fire department, as well as foam that they had sprayed on the runway. He indicated that after landing and going to a “rallying point,” medics came by to check on everyone, but no one was hurt. The Veteran reported dissociative daydreams about seeing the plane crash and himself in a casket. In an October 2019 memorandum, the Air Force Safety Center indicated that a thorough review of the repository for mishap records from 1956 to the present for information concerning the Veteran’s claimed crash incident did not yield any records that fit the dates of the claimed incident. The Air Force Safety Center noted that, typically, information on first responders/personnel involved in the recovery of human remains/aircraft parts is not part of the safety investigation report. The Air Force Safety Center indicated that a secondary search for records was possible if additional information such as aircraft type and the tail number of the aircraft could be supplied. In a January 2020 statement, the Veteran noted that the type of aircraft that he was in during the crash that he was involved in was a C-141, and that the incident occurred during the spring or early summer of 1971. He stated that he was unable to recall the tail number of the aircraft, but indicated that “a few days” after the incident he was informed by an airman that the aircraft had been repaired in approximately two days and returned to its home base. The airman further informed him that the plane was not “a regular Air Force plane,” but instead was part of either the Air National Guard or Reserves. In a statement received by VA in July 2020, the Veteran claimed that the only medical treatment he received regarding the claimed plane crash incident was having his blood pressure taken along with the other members of his squadron that were involved in the incident. He stated that the medics checked his heart and lungs and asked if he had any bruises, cuts, or broken bones, which he did not. He indicated that the medic told him to report to his duty station if he had no injuries, and he did not seek any additional treatment for the incident afterward. In a September 2020 statement, the Veteran’s friend stated that he had known the Veteran since the early 1960’s, and noted that they lived in the same neighborhood. He indicated that after graduating from high school, they were reunited at Dyess Air Force Base in 1970 to 1971. He reported that the Veteran was part of the 10th Aerial Port Squadron, and that his Squadron had personnel on TDY constantly, including the Veteran. His friend claimed that during the spring of 1971, he heard about an aircraft accident that occurred at the base, and that the incident was common knowledge among flight line personnel. His friend stated that he ran into the Veteran on the base a few days after the incident, and the Veteran informed him that he had been on the aircraft involved in the nose landing gear failure. His friend indicated that the Veteran did not provide much detail about the incident, but appeared nervous. In a printout of an email from the Veteran to the historian for Dyess Air Force Base, received by VA in September 2020, the Veteran indicated that the historian noted in a previous phone conversation that the historical records office of Dyess Air Force Base had been relocated two or three times since the early 1970s, and that some records may have been lost in the moves. He requested that the historian send an email documenting that the records he was searching for may have been lost. In a printout of an email from the historian for Dyess Air Force Base to the Veteran, received by VA in September 2020, the historian indicated that he could not find any mention of the Veteran’s claimed aircraft accident. The historian did note that an issue of “Peacemaker magazine” from the time period given by the Veteran confirmed that there was an operation at Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina that involved personnel from Dyess Air Force Base. The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s PTSD is related to an in-service stressor, as the evidence of record is insufficient to confirm the occurrence of any of his claimed in-service stressors. First, the Board notes that the Veteran’s service personnel records do not indicate that he ever served in Vietnam, and instead reflect that his only foreign service was in Iceland. Further, his personnel records do not show that he was assigned to either a foreign TDY or a formal TDY in the United States. Additionally, the November 2013 response to VA’s search request by the archivist at the JSRRC presented factual information regarding the processing of fallen service members in Vietnam that contradicted the Veteran’s reports of events during his claimed TDY. The archivist noted that all American human remains in Vietnam would have been sent to the United States Army Mortuary at Tan Son Nhut Air Base for processing and shipment back to the United States. The archivist further indicated that while theoretically some caskets could have been sent to Da Nang for potential use, if they were present it the number implied by the Veteran it would likely be due to an erroneous delivery to the base and the caskets would be empty. This goes against the Veteran’s statements indicating that he recovered bodies from the field and loaded them into caskets, that the caskets were covered in flags, and that he was informed that one casket contained the body of a female and was to get special treatment. The Veteran’s evolving set of facts regarding his time in Vietnam also further draws into question the veracity of his claims. Initially, he indicated that his duties related to the TDY only involved loading caskets and other items, such as ammunition, for transport to the United States. However, later records also note assertions that he was involved in body recovery in the field and that he witnessed a mortar attack that killed a fellow service member. While the Veteran gave vivid recollections related to these events, the objective evidence of record indicating that he did not serve on a TDY in Vietnam draws into question the credibility of his statements. While the Veteran’s friend indicated in a May 2011 statement that the Veteran mentioned his TDY in Vietnam while they traveled together to VA medical appointments, there is no indication that the friend had independent knowledge of the details of the claimed TDY, or otherwise knew that the TDY to Vietnam actually took place. Thus, without any objective corroborating evidence, the Board finds that the friend’s statement holds little probative value in supporting the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor of a TDY in Vietnam. In summation, the evidence of record concerning the Veteran’s claimed TDY in Vietnam consists almost entirely of his somewhat inconsistent statements regarding loading caskets, recovering bodies in the field, and witnessing a mortar attack. The research evidence provided by the JSRRC contradicts his assertions, and the Veteran’s friend lacked any independent knowledge of the claimed event, and his statement instead merely represented evidence that the Veteran spoke of the claimed incident to others. Overall, the Board finds the evidence concerning the military records for the Veteran’s squadron and the units serving in Da Nang, Vietnam at the time he alleged to have been on the TDY, which contradict the Veteran’s claim that he loaded hundreds, if not thousands, of caskets containing bodies in Vietnam beginning in December 1970, most probative and compelling. Therefore, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against confirmation of his claim that he served on a TDY in Vietnam in beginning in December 1970. Next, the Board notes that the Veteran’s service personnel records or service medical records do not contain any indication that he was involved in an aircraft accident during his military service, particularly while stationed at Dyess Air Force Base. Although the Dyess Air Force Base historian noted in an email that an issue of “Peacemaker magazine” from the relevant time period mentioned that personnel from Dyess Air Force Base took part in an operation at Pope Air Force Base in North Carolina, supporting the Veteran’s contention that he was returning from North Carolina when the incident occurred, the historian stated that he could not find any record of the claimed aircraft accident and did not provide any information that would confirm the Veteran took part in the operation in North Carolina. Further, the Air Force Safety Center indicated in an October 2019 communication that a thorough review of the repository for mishap records from 1956 to the present for information concerning the Veteran’s claimed crash incident did not yield any records that fit the dates of the claimed incident. Additionally, though the Veteran’s friend indicated in a July 2011 statement that he was on a TDY at Dyess Air Force Base in 1971 and noticed that he exhibited a different attitude than he had prior to entering the military, the friend did not mention the claimed aircraft accident as being related to his behavior. His wife also claimed that he had a fear of flying and that his behavior changed after his military service, but noted that he did not discuss details of in-service incidents with her. Although another friend recalled in a September 2020 statement that he heard about an aircraft accident in the spring of 1971 while serving at Dyess Air Force Base, which he stated was common knowledge among those on the flight line, and was informed by the Veteran shortly after the accident that he was in the aircraft with the nose landing gear failure, the friend did not indicate that he personally witnessed the accident or was otherwise involved in the accident. While this evidence does support the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor, the lack of first-hand evidence or contemporaneous documentation of the claimed accident limits the probative value of that statement. Despite attempts to locate records related to the Veteran’s claimed 1971 aircraft accident at Dyess Air Force Base, VA was unable to find any documentation of the event. Further, the Veteran’s own attempt to obtain documentation confirming the event through the Dyess Air Force Base historian likewise did not yield any records supporting that an aircraft accident occurred in the spring or early summer of 1971. Although the Veteran has claimed that records related to the event were probably lost or destroyed, there is no evidence that any relevant records were actually or likely lost or destroyed. Attempts to locate the records by VA did not indicate that they may have been involved in the 1973 fire at the Military Personnel Records Center in Missouri. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran has not elaborated on what type of records concerning his claimed stressor he believed would have been involved in that fire. Both his service personnel records and service medical records are present in the claims file, with neither mentioning an aircraft accident or indicating that he underwent medical treatment which could be related to any such accident. Further, though the Veteran noted a conversation with the Dyess Air Force Base historian in which he indicated that the historian had previously claimed that some Base records could have been lost in office moves, the historian did not confirm that records which could have be relevant to the Veteran’s claim were actually lost. The Board notes that while the Veteran also argued that VA should obtain the maintenance records for the aircraft in order to confirm the landing gear problem at issue in the claimed accident, he was unable to provide information specific to the aircraft, such as the tail number, and indicated that it was possibly not even an Air Force aircraft. He reported that the aircraft was a C-141 that could have been associated with the Air National Guard or Reserves, but did not provide sufficient information that would reasonably allow VA to obtain any such records. This is reflected in a July 2020 VA memorandum documenting the numerous efforts to obtain relevant records, as well as a conclusion that any additional efforts would be futile due to a lack of information necessary to allow for meaningful research. The Board notes that while VA’s duty to assist is broad, it is not unlimited, but rather must be channeled into “reasonable efforts” to provide such assistance. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(a). As VA has taken extensive efforts to obtain information related to the Veteran’s claimed stressors, and issued a formal memorandum indicating further efforts would not be reasonable, VA met its duty to assist in this regard. Ultimately, the Board again notes that the majority of the evidence present in the claims file concerning the Veteran’s claimed aircraft accident consists of his own statements. While a long-time friend who indicated that he served at Dyess Air Force Base at the same time that the Veteran did stated that he heard about an accident at that time claimed by the Veteran, and was told by the Veteran that he was in the aircraft involved, the lack of any objective evidence documenting that the accident actually occurred overwhelms the probative value of the friend’s statement. His friend was not personally involved in the events surrounding the accident, and did not provide any additional detail of the event beyond hearing that an accident happened at the Base at that time. Additionally, the Veteran asserted that the aircraft was forced to dump fuel, that the runway was coated with foam, and that fire trucks and an ambulance were present on the runway; however, no records were found reflecting that an event which allegedly prompted such a serious response took place, despite a search of the repository for mishap records from 1956 to the present. Based on the foregoing, Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against confirmation of his claim that he was involved in an aircraft accident at Dyess Air Force Base in 1971. Finally, the Board notes that while the Veteran’s personnel records reflect that he was assigned to Bolling Air Force Base as a vehicle driver from April 1967 to August 1969, the evidence present in the claims file does not provide any information specifically indicating that he was assigned duties that included acting as a driver for the families of fallen service members for funerals at Arlington National Cemetery on “funeral duty” for over one year. His performance evaluation covering that period generally discusses his duty as the driver for the headquarters Chief of Staff, and notes his involvement in transporting United States and foreign dignitaries. Likewise, the September 1968 Letter of Appreciation that he submitted indicates that he transported members of Congress and staff during an Air Force event, but does not reference participation in funeral services at Arlington National Cemetery. Although the Veteran’s friend recalled in a November 2014 statement that he was billeted at Bolling Air Force Base at the same time that the Veteran was stationed there, the friend only noted that the Veteran was wearing a “class A uniform” and that he was told by the Veteran during the brief encounter during his first week there that he was on burial detail. The friend stated that he did not ask any more questions on the topic. The friend claimed that approximately eight years later, he again saw the Veteran, and the Veteran discussed experiencing nightmares about funerals. The friend also reported that he saw the Veteran approximately 35 years later at their high school reunion, and the Veteran discussed his feelings of anxiety and indicated that he couldn’t get the military funerals in Washington, D.C. and carrying caskets out of his mind. Despite these multiple brief encounters and discussions regarding funerals, including funeral duty while in the military, the friend did not serve on funeral duty with the Veteran, or otherwise have independent knowledge of his claim that he served on “funeral duty” and transported families of fallen soldiers and participated in funerals at Arlington National Cemetery for a period of over one year. The Board notes that there is no documentation indicating that the Veteran’s duties while stationed at Bolling Air Force Base included transporting the families of fallen service members or participating in military funeral services. While the record indicates that he was stationed at Bolling Air Force Base for approximately 16 months, there is no indication that he was continually on “funeral duty” during that time. Instead, the available records show that he transported the headquarters Chief of Staff, United States and foreign dignitaries, and, in at least one instance, members of Congress and staff. Although the Veteran’s wife indicated that he avoided going to funerals throughout their marriage, there is no objective evidence indicating that his behavior was due to his military service. While the November 2014 statement by the Veteran’s friend provides some evidence in support of the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressor, the friend had no independent knowledge of his “funeral duty,” and the claims file lacks any objective evidence showing that the Veteran’s duties at Bolling Air Force Base included involvement in funeral services at Arlington National Cemetery. Again, the evidence of record supporting his claims consists primarily of the Veteran’s own statements. Though his statements regarding his service at Bolling Air Force Base are not explicitly contradicted by his service records, and while he submitted a statement from a friend indicating a contemporaneous discussion where the Veteran claimed he was on “funeral duty” took place, the Board notes that when viewing the totality of the evidence in this instance, the statements by the Veteran and his friend are not sufficient to confirm that his claimed in-service stressor occurred. The Board notes that the friend’s statement only corroborates that the Veteran stated he was on “funeral duty,” without any independent observation of such duties or first-hand knowledge supporting that the Veteran was involved in military funeral services for over a year. The Board further notes that the veracity of the Veteran’s statements has previously been drawn into question herein due to the contradiction between his claimed experiences in Vietnam and historical facts relating to how fallen service members were brought back to the United States from Vietnam. The Board also notes that the Veteran submitted statements from a friend claiming that he mentioned being deployed to Vietnam in their conversations, despite evidence indicating that he was not involved in a TDY in Vietnam during his military service. Thus, the credibility statements by the Veteran’s friends concerning discussion of his claimed stressors is also brought into question due to their reliance on the Veteran’s statements. Based on a lack of objective evidence corroborating statements made concerning the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressors, the Board finds that the evidence in support of the occurrence of the Veteran being assigned to “funeral duty” for a period of over one year is insufficient to rise to the level of being at least as likely as not. Thus, the Board finds that preponderance of the evidence is against a finding confirming that the Veteran was involved in numerous military funerals at Arlington National Cemetery over the course of the approximately 16 months that he was stationed at Bolling Air Force Base. In conclusion, when viewing the evidence of record and the Veteran’s claims in their totality, the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, or a diagnosis of any additional acquired psychiatric disorder, that is related to an in-service stressor, as none of his claimed stressors have been confirmed to have at least as likely as not occurred. The Board has thoroughly considered the Veteran’s and associated lay statements of record. However, there is no objective evidence supporting any of the Veteran’s claimed stressors, and in some instances the evidence of record contradicts the events he reported to have occurred during his military service. Though he has presented statements from long-time friends, some of which were claimed to have occurred when the individuals crossed paths with the Veteran during his time in the military, none of these individuals had first-hand experience concerning his claimed in-service stressors, and instead amount largely to recollections that the Veteran claimed to have experienced such events while in the military, and as such the Board finds the Veteran’s and associated lay statements are entitled to less probative weight. As the verifiable evidence related to the Veteran’s claimed in-service stressors is almost entirely against his claims, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for PTSD is not warranted. As such the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include PTSD is denied. K.R. Kardian Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Ferguson, 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.