Citation Nr: 21024632 Decision Date: 04/23/21 Archive Date: 04/23/21 DOCKET NO. 12-12 862 DATE: April 23, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT Prior to his passing, the Veteran did not have a present diagnosis of PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for establishing entitlement to service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had honorable active service with the United States Army from April 1954 to April 1956. The Veteran passed away in December 2014. See Death Certificate received May 2015. At the time of the Veteran’s death, he had a pending claim for service connection for PTSD. See SOC dated March 2012, Form 9 dated May 2012. Appellant claims as surviving spouse; she filed a substitution request to continue the Veteran’s claims. In June 2017, the Board remanded the claim for service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depression for further development including a VA opinion. The Appellant was afforded an opinion in November 2017. In August 2019, a rating decision granted the deceased Veteran’s claim for service connection for major depression, for accrued benefits at 70 percent effective June 25, 2004. Since entitlement to service connection was granted, the RO considered this a full grant of benefits, and there was no supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). The Appellant filed a VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review in October 2019 citing on the form the August 2019 rating decision. In December 2019, the RO sent a letter stating that they were unable to accept the request for a Higher-Level review. The Appellant sent an appeal brief in January 2020. See Third Party Correspondence received January 2020. It appears to date that the RO has not responded to this Appeal brief. In February 2021, the Appellant requested that the claim be certified to the Board. See Third Party Correspondence received February 2021. Generally, to establish service connection there must be competent evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the in-service injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Pursuant to the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f), a claim for service connection for PTSD requires: (1) a diagnosis that conforms to the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a medical link between the diagnosis and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence of the occurrence of the in-service stressor. The requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) indicate that the diagnosis of a mental disorder must conform to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5). The Secretary shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and make appropriate determinations as to competence, credibility, and weight. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). Competent lay evidence means any evidence not requiring that the proponent have specialized education, training, or experience if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. When there is an approximate balance between positive and negative evidence the benefit of the doubt doctrine must apply in favor of the Veteran. But when the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claims of the Veteran the claim will be denied on its merits. In those cases, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Appellant contends that the Veteran was entitled to service connection for PTSD. The Board concludes that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of PTSD prior to his death. However, as noted above, the Veteran was found entitled to service connection for major depression. In November 2017, the VA examiner reviewed the evidence including lay evidence and medical evidence. The examiner noted that he did not see a formal diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder in the records from before the Veteran’s death. The examiner also opined that based on the records the Veteran’s condition was major depressive disorder rather than PTSD. See C&P Exam received November 2017. The Board affords this opinion significant probative weight; it is thoroughly explained, well-supported and based on a review of the record. While the Appellant believes that the Veteran had a diagnosis of PTSD, she is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). There must be a current diagnosis of a disorder for service connection to be granted. Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999). Without a medical diagnosis of PTSD, the Board must deny the Veteran’s claim. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1333 (1997) (holding that the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation). Since the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable. The claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD must be denied. Based on the foregoing, the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is denied. The preponderance of the evidence is against the appellant’s claim; thus, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Ortiz, 274 F.3d at 1365. N. RIPPEL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Associate Counsel, C. Parnell 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.