Citation Nr: 21024231 Decision Date: 04/22/21 Archive Date: 04/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-06 153 DATE: April 22, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as PTSD is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s PTSD had its onset in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from February 1982 to February 1986. The Veteran presented sworn testimony at a hearing before the undersigned in April 2021. As there are multiple other psychiatric diagnoses of record, the Board finds that it is more appropriate to characterize the claim broadly as one of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The Veteran seeks service connection for PTSD, which he attributes to military sexual trauma (MST). See May 2017 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim; see also April 2021 Hr’g Tr.; January 2018 VA 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim. A psychiatric disorder based on personal assault refers broadly to stressor events involving harm perpetrated by a person who is not considered part of an enemy force. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5). The VA acknowledges the unique problems veterans face in documenting their claims because of the sensitive and extremely personal nature of assault. To compensate for the difficulties in reporting and producing evidence to support the occurrence of a stressor, evidence from sources other than the Veteran's service records may corroborate the Veteran's account of the stressor incident. In fact, the absence of in-service reports or treatments cannot be considered “negative evidence” in personal assault cases. See AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Unlike in other PTSD claims, an after-the-fact medical opinion can serve as the credible supporting evidence of the stressor in PTSD personal assault claims. See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379 (fed. Cir. 2011). In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay reports as to the onset and recurrence of symptoms since a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board finds that service connection for PTSD is warranted. At the October 1981 Enlistment Examination, the Veteran’s psychiatric evaluation was noted as normal. See October 1981 Enlistment Examination. As such, the Veteran is presumed to have been sound at the time of entry into service with respect to a psychiatric disorder. The Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. See July 2017 Clinical Psychologist Note; see also February 2019 Mental Health Group. The Veteran’s post treatment records show multiple psychiatric diagnoses including depressive disorder, unspecified; alcohol use disorder; adjustment disorder with anxiety; crack cocaine use disorder; marijuana use disorder and alcohol use disorder. See May 2018 Initial PTSD DBQ; see also January 2019 Mental Health Consultation. The Board finds credible the Veteran's account that his reported MST actually occurred. While the Veteran did not report the sexual trauma in service, throughout the pendency of the appeal, to include to the Board and to mental health care providers, the Veteran has provided a consistent account of the military sexual trauma. See April 2021 Hr’g Tr.; January 2018 and May 2018 VA Form 21-4138, Statement in Support of Claim; November 2017 to May 2018 Treatment Records. In his account, the Veteran testified that during service, while in office with a Colonel, the Colonel exposed himself and tried to perform oral sex on him. See April 2018 Hr’g Tr. Additionally, the Veteran stated, that he did not tell anyone about it at the time. He did not want to participate in experiences with the Colonel. He reports that he began drinking more and staying out later. He stated that approximately 4-6 months after the incident the Veteran was offered and tried cocaine and continued to use cocaine for the last 2 years he was in the military. See April 2021 Hr’g Tr. Post military, he was arrested for buying cocaine from the police. He testified that he has been arrested for a number of things. He reported that he cannot hold a “regular job” because he cannot be in an office setting. Id. Additionally, the Veteran stated, that the Colonel was subsequently arrested and the Veteran felt “relieved.” The Veteran submitted articles detailing the Colonel was found guilty of similar events. See January 2018 Military Personnel Record. Here, the Board ascribes heightened credibility to the Veteran’s account of his in-service trauma as it was made to clinicians for the purpose of treatment. See July 2017 Clinical Psychologist Notes. In April 2021, the Veteran’s sister submitted a statement that prior to joining the military, she and the Veteran were close and the Veteran was good at school and outgoing. Since leaving the military, the Veteran changed. She noted that he had been incarcerated. After being released from jail, she allowed the Veteran to live in their childhood home. She stated, the Veteran would isolate himself and when he was around, he would argue with family members and the police had to be called several times. She reported that she had to have him removed from the house and that she, along with some other family members, are afraid of him. See April 2021 Buddy Statement. The Board acknowledges the May 2017 and May 2018 negative nexus opinions. The VA examiners reasoned that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for PTSD; however, the Board notes, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. See July 2017 Clinical Psychologist Note; see also Rucker v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 67, 73 (1997) (ascribing heightened credibility to statements made to clinicians for the purpose of treatment). Here, throughout the appeal, the Veteran's statements have been consistent and have been corroborated by medical evidence of record. Further, the Board finds the Veteran's reports both competent and credible. Thus, because the competent and credible evidence shows that the Veteran suffered MST while he was on active duty and has a diagnosis of PTSD, the Board resolves any doubt in the Veteran's favor and concludes that service connection for PTSD is warranted. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jacquelynn M. Jordan, 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.