Citation Nr: 21014778 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 16-53 249A DATE: March 15, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and unspecified depressive disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is in equipoise as to whether there was a link between the Veteran’s an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder, and his in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1154, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from October 1969 to September 1973, including in the Republic of Vietnam. His awards included the Combat Infantryman Badge. The Veteran died in September 2017, and the appellant is his surviving spouse. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a rating decision dated September 2012 issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. The Veteran timely appealed. The appellant testified at a November 2020 video hearing with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been reviewed and associated with the claims file. Service Connection Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder has unique evidentiary requirements. It generally requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). See also Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997). When there is an approximate balance of evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each issue shall be given to the claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. A claimant need only demonstrate an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence in order to prevail. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). For a claim to be denied on the merits, a preponderance of the evidence must be against the claim. See Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). With consideration of the above described regulations governing acquired psychiatric disorder claims, the Board finds the evidence, when considered in a light most favorable to the Appellant, warrants a finding of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. . The first and most fundamental requirement for any service-connection claim is the existence of a current disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). VA requires a diagnosis that conforms to The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), to compensate for a psychiatric disability. Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393, 401 (2020). VA treatment records contain DSM-5 conforming diagnoses of PTSD, unspecified depressive disorder, and alcohol use disorder, moderate, in early partial remission. See Medical Treatment Record dated July 2017. Therefore, the Board finds that the Appellant has satisfied the first prong of service connection, the existence of a current disability. Regarding the second element, the Veteran was awarded the Combat Infantryman Badge. He is entitled to the combat presumption. In a February 2013 statement, the Veteran wrote, On about July 1970, in one isolated incident, while on routine patrol out of firebase Bastogne, I was assigned as point man. We had had an RVN “scout” whom we labeled “Kit Carsons” who had gone ahead of our patrol. We were suddenly ambushed by the enemy by small arms; our RVN “Scout” killed in action. This cemented for me the grim realization that our lives literally hung by a thread on a day to day basis. Following this incident, I started becoming extremely agitated and somewhat edgy as I never knew from day to day when I would be killed or wounded myself. As if the day patrols were not dangerous or “hot” enough, we oftentimes were required to undergo night patrols thereby elevating the element of danger. I might add that in the initial encounter with the enemy as stated above, there was one man who was wounded and med[e]vac[k]ed. I did not know him nor did I have any prior association with him, only that he was a squad leader. I know he was wounded because I was there and witnessed him being med[e]vac[k]ed. The Veteran’s reports of this in-service stressor are credible and consistent with the time, place, and circumstances of his service. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Appellant has satisfied the second element, an in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(2). Finally, with respect to the third requirement, medical evidence of a link between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor during his military service, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran’s PTSD was due to his in-service combat stressor. Resolving doubt in the appellant’s favor, the Board finds that service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as PTSD and unspecified depressive disorder, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. 49. LAURA E. COLLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K. Bristor 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.