Citation Nr: 21021706 Decision Date: 04/13/21 Archive Date: 04/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-37 417 DATE: April 13, 2021 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence supports finding the Veteran’s PTSD is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION VA records indicate the Veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to October 1985. In November 2018, the Veteran appeared for hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The hearing transcript is associated with the record. Service connection for PTSD The Veteran contends entitlement to service connection for PTSD. Service connection may be granted for a disability or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish service connection for a present disability the claimant must show: (1) the existence of a present disability, (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) a causal relationship or “nexus” between the present disability and the in-service injury or disease. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran’s fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran’s symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. For VA purposes, “fear of hostile military or terrorist activity” means that a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, and the veteran’s response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3). The Board recognizes the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a). See December 2013 and November 2019 VA examination. VA clinicians have established a link between his PTSD symptoms and the reported in-service stressor. Id. Therefore, the question for the Board is whether there is credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. The Veteran contends he was stationed on the USS Banner from approximately February 1967 to January 1968. He stated during this time he participated in tactical intelligence gathering missions. He stated the ship was often harassed by foreign vessels during these missions. See August 2010 statements, December 2014 NOD, October 2015 VA9, and November 2018 hearing transcript. The Veteran submitted an article that discussed congressional hearings about the seizure of the USS Pueblo by North Korea on January 23, 1968. The congressional hearings discussed incidents involving the USS Banner leading up to the January 23, 1968 incident. The article stated “on three prior surveillance missions, foreign ships had trained guns on the USS Banner as a harassment tactic,” “the sister ship of the USS Pueblo, the USS Banner, had been harassed on 10 of her previous 16 missions, so the appearance of North Korean naval armada and MIGs was not totally unexpected,” and “this was not the first time that a full intelligence mission had taken place off the territory of North Korea… the USS Banner had conducted missions during which time she was harassed including being bumped by the North Koreans 10 times.” A Defense Personnel Records Information Retrieval System (DPRIS) search noted deck logs for the period in question showed the USS Banner made cruises out of Yokosuka, Japan gathering oceanographic and environmental data for the Navy. The search noted after March 1967, the USS Banner was at an unspecified location conducting a special operation. The search found no reference to interaction with hostile vessels. An April 2011 National Archives and Records Administration letter stated deck logs could not be provided because the records had not been declassified. The Board finds competent and credible evidence of the Veteran’s reported in-service stressor. VA examinations in December 2013 and November 2019 stated the reported stressor was adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD and was related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. The reported stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the Veteran’s service. Service records confirm the Veteran served on the USS Banner from February 1967 to January 1968. The Veteran’s duty assignment was as a senior non-morse collector/analyst. A DPRIS search noted the ship was conducting a special operation to an unspecified location around the time in question. The Veteran submitted a buddy statement from a fellow shipmate on the USS Banner that corroborated the harassment from foreign vessels. See August 2014 statement. An article discussing congressional hearings about the seizure of the USS Pueblo described incidents leading up to the January 23, 1968 incident, to include the USS Banner being harassed on numerous occasions by foreign vessels while conducting intelligence operations. As the Veteran was transferred from the USS Banner on January 5, 1968 and served on the USS Banner for the year prior, it is reasonable to assume the Veteran was present for at least some of the harassment incidents. The preponderance of the evidence supports finding the Veteran’s PTSD is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity during service. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD is warranted. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Winkler, 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.