Citation Nr: 21015321 Decision Date: 03/17/21 Archive Date: 03/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-57 371 DATE: March 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for depression and trauma/stressor-related disorder is granted. Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s currently diagnosed depression and trauma/stressor-related disorder are related to his in-service stressors. 2. The Veteran does not meet all of the criteria to establish a diagnosis of PTSD. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for depression and trauma/stressor-related disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from June 1984 to November 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned VLJ on September 21, 2020; a transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record.  In Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the scope of a mental health disability claim includes any mental disorder that may reasonably be encompassed by the claimant’s description of the claim, reported symptoms, and other information of record. In consideration of Clemons and the other diagnoses of record, the Board has re-characterized the Veteran’s claim as a claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include major depressive disorder and trauma/stressor-related disorder. Service Connection - Pertinent Laws and Regulations Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD requires the following three elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor(s) actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence of a causal relationship between current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor(s). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 433 (2011). This includes weighing the credibility and probative value of lay evidence against the remaining evidence of record. See King v. Shinseki, 700 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2012); Kahana, 24 Vet. App. at 433-34. When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with a veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Analysis The Veteran contends that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to his witnessing of an aircraft crash adjacent to the ship he was stationed aboard and resultant fatalities. See November 2017 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran is currently diagnosed with major depressive disorder and a trauma/stressor-related disorder, other specified. See October 2017 VA Treatment Record. Therefore, the first element of the claim, a current disability, is satisfied. Regarding an in-service stressor, in his November 2015 statement in support of claim for PTSD, the Veteran reported he witnessed an aircraft crew member go under water and not resurface after an aircraft crashed into the ocean upon returning from flight operations. See November 2015 Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD. The Veteran testified that the event took place less than 100 feet from where he was standing. See September 2020 Hearing Transcript, page 5. Further, a declassified command history shows that an aircraft was indeed lost in the North Arabian Sea in August 1985, and that two crewmen were missing. See March 1986 Declassified Command History. Lastly, the Veteran’s stressor was corroborated by a fellow soldier in a statement received in February 2017. Accordingly, the Board finds that there is probative evidence of an in-service stressor. Thus, this claim hinges on whether there is a causal relationship, or nexus, between current diagnosed disorders and the in-service stressor. Turning to the evidence, the Veteran was provided a VA compensation examination in May 2016. The Veteran recounted the fatal accident he saw in service and reported that when he thinks about the event, he cannot think of anything else. The examiner, a psychologist, noted the Veteran personally witnessed a traumatic event and had recurrent and intrusive distressing memories of the event which lasted longer than 1 month, and which contributed to the diagnosis. The examiner found the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD but was diagnosed with depression. The examiner stated that the Veteran does not endorse symptoms meeting the formal diagnostic criteria for PTSD. In August 2017, the Veteran underwent diagnostic testing and the VA psychologist diagnosed major depressive disorder, single episode, moderate. See August 2017 VA Treatment Record. In an October 2017 follow-up note, a VA clinical psychologist interpreted the Veteran’s diagnostic testing as not supportive of a PTSD diagnosis, but rather a diagnosis of stressor/trauma-related disorder. The VA psychologist stated that the Veteran’s clinical problems stemmed from a mix of possible factors including his trauma and possible other life factors and/or personality traits. Further, the psychologist found that the Veteran had been impacted negatively from his reported trauma, the plane crash, and given his reported symptoms, the examiner opined the trauma-related symptoms are best accounted for with diagnoses of a trauma/stressor-related disorder, as well as an adjustment-like disorder with a prolonged duration of more than 6 months without prolonged duration of stressor. See October 2017 VA Treatment Record. The Board finds highly probative the treatment notes and opinion from the Veteran’s treating VA psychologist. The psychologist completed diagnostic testing and examined the Veteran to arrive at the current diagnoses of major depressive disorder and other-specified and stressor-related disorder. Further, the psychologist concluded, based on testing and examination that the current diagnoses resulted, at least in part, from the Veteran’s plane crash stressor while stationed aboard the U.S.S. Midway. While there is no evidence that the psychologist reviewed the claims file, it is evident that the psychologist’s opinion was based on the accurate and probative history provided by the Veteran. See Harris v. West, 203 F.3d 1347, 1350-51 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (examiner opinion based on accurate lay history deemed competent medical evidence in support of the claim). As such, the Board provides the opinion from the VA psychologist substantial probative weight. Given the competent evidence of current diagnosis of stressor/trauma related disorder rendered by a VA psychologist, a corroborated stressor, and competent evidence linking the two, the Board finds that the criteria to establish service connection are met for that disorder. Further, the May 2016 VA examiner diagnosed depression based on the plane crash stressor. It was noted that 5 to 6 months after the incident, the Veteran began drinking and fighting. With resolution of any doubt in his favor, the Board grants service connection for depression as well. (Continued on the next page)   The Board recognizes that the Veteran initially filed this service connection claim specifically for PTSD. Although he meets some of the criterion for a diagnosis of PTSD, he does not meet them all; this determination was made by the 2016 and 2017 VA psychologists, after having interviewed the Veteran and conducting diagnostic testing. The 2017 psychologist attributed the Veteran’s trauma stressor to the currently diagnosed psychiatric disorders. The Board finds the psychologist’s diagnoses and reasoning highly probative. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD is not warranted, but as decided above, service connection is in order for depressive disorder and trauma/stressor-related disorder. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Moldawer, 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.