Citation Nr: 21024561 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 20-20 202 DATE: April 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, variously diagnosed as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, adjustment like disorder with prolonged duration of more than six months without prolonged duration of stressor, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, adjustment like disorder with prolonged duration of more than six months without prolonged duration of stressor, is etiologically related to his time on active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, adjustment like disorder with prolonged duration of more than six months without prolonged duration of stressor, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1965 to January 1969. He appeals a rating decision by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) denying his claim of entitlement to service connection for a mental health condition. At the outset, the Board notes that the AOJ characterized the Veteran’s claim for service connection as a petition to reopen a previously denied claim. However, the Board finds that the instant claim is a continuation of the Veteran’s original claim. The filing of a notice of disagreement (NOD) places a claim in appellate status. Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 239, 240-41 (1999). The Board acknowledges that effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its adjudication regulations to provide that VA would accept a NOD only if it was submitted on a standardized form for the purpose of appealing the decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201; 79 Fed. Reg. 57660. Here, the Veteran’s attorney filed a written NOD, received in February 2014, with the December 2013 rating decision. As this NOD predates the March 24, 2015 regulation change, the Board finds that the Veteran filed a timely NOD with the December 2013 rating decision. No Statement of the Case (SOC) was issued until March 2020, to which the Veteran timely perfected his appeal. See April 2020 VA Form 9. As such, the December 2013 rating decision never became final and the Veteran’s initial December 2012 claim is still pending. Therefore, the Board need not address whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reach the merits of the claim. The evidentiary record shows diagnoses and claims for PTSD, depression, anxiety, and most recently other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, adjustment like disorder with prolonged duration of more than six months without prolonged duration of stressor. As such, the Board has recharacterized the claim on appeal to entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). A Veteran is entitled to VA disability compensation if there is a disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service, or for aggravation of a preexisting injury suffered or disease contracted in the line of duty in active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131. Generally, to establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service, the so-called “nexus” requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that a disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The first and second Shedden elements are met. The Veteran has a diagnosis of other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, adjustment like disorder with prolonged duration of more than six months without prolonged duration of stressor. See August 2018 Dr. C.M. disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ). The Veteran has reported multiple different events during his service in Thailand to which he relates his acquired psychiatric disorder. Specifically, he recounted a time when he had to take cover in a bunker during an attack and experienced intense fear, getting in a motor vehicle accident which injured a civilian, and states he was almost kidnapped by a taxi driver and had a knife placed to his neck. Lastly, he stated he saw a dead body at the Thai Air Force Base where he was stationed. Id. The Veteran’s statements in this regard are credible and consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of his service. As a result, this case centers on whether there is an etiological relationship between the Veteran’s diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder and his time on active duty. Dr. C.M., based on a thorough review of the Veteran’s record and interview with the Veteran, stated that the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder more likely than not is caused by, related to, or secondary to his military service. He reasonably relied on the Veteran’s statements regarding his experiences in service and linked said experiences to his current symptoms and diagnosis. See August 2018 Dr. C.M. medical opinion. As the evidence for and the evidence against the Veteran’s claim is in relative equipoise, the Board affords the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, and finds there is expert evidence of record establishing a link between the Veteran’s acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as other specified trauma and stressor related disorder, adjustment like disorder with prolonged duration of more than six months without prolonged duration of stressor, and his time on active duty. Accordingly, service connection is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Katie Poe, 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.