Citation Nr: 21025085 Decision Date: 04/27/21 Archive Date: 04/27/21 DOCKET NO. 15-26 600 DATE: April 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with associated depression is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his PTSD with associated depression is at least as likely as not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD with associated depression have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from August 1988 to May 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The Veteran requested a Central Office hearing before the Board on the above matters, which was scheduled for June 2019. The Veteran was sent a letter notifying him of the place and time of the hearing in April 2019. The letter further informed the Veteran how to reschedule a hearing, that a motion for a new hearing had to be filed within 15 days after the hearing if it was missed, and that if the Veteran did not appear at the hearing, his hearing request would be deemed to be withdrawn. The hearing was postponed, and the Veteran was sent another notice in June 2019 that his hearing was rescheduled for September 2019. The Veteran did not appear at the hearing, did not request a rescheduled hearing, and did not file a motion for a new hearing within 15 days of missing the hearing. Therefore, the Board deems the request withdrawn. 1. Service connection PTSD with associated depression is granted. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) (2017). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a Veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) 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. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (2017). There are particular requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) that are separate from those for establishing service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In order to establish service connection for PTSD, there must be medical evidence of PTSD, medical evidence that establishes a link between current symptoms and an in-service stressor, and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f); Shedden, supra. Corroboration of the stressor is not required when a VA psychiatrist or psychologist diagnoses PTSD resulting from a fear of hostile military or terrorist activity when that fear is consistent with the circumstances of the Veteran's service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(3). Corroboration of the existence of a stressor is also not required in certain circumstances when the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD in service, the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that experience, or the Veteran was a prisoner of war and the claimed stressor is related to that experience. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(1), (2), (4). Corroboration of the existence of an in-service stressor is necessary in all other cases. Reasonable doubt concerning any matter material to the determination is resolved in the Veteran's favor. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Board initially finds that there is a current disability. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). The Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD with associated depression in a July 2013 VA examination. The Veteran claimed in a March 2010 VA treatment record that his PTSD was due to violence that he experienced while stationed in Panama as well as difficulties he experienced in basic training. The Veteran reported that he had been attacked by Panamanian civilians during a protest. The Veteran also stated in the July 2013 VA examination that while stationed in Panama as a part of Operation Just Cause, he was involved in firefights and was shot in the helmet. The Veteran also related his PTSD symptoms to the pressure that he was under during basic training. He stated that the constant disciplining and harsh environment caused him to react negatively. He reported being treated for mental health symptoms while in service. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the circumstances of his time in service as they are based on his own direct observations. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994). Moreover, the Board finds these statements to be credible, as the Veteran has reported a consistent history of the in-service stressors in describing the stressors throughout the period on appeal. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007). The Board finds that there is credible evidence of the Veteran's in-service stressor of experiencing violence in Panama. The Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD by a VA psychologist based on his experience of breaking up a riot in Panama and experiencing a firefight in the jungles. The VA psychiatrist noted on the examination that the Veteran’s diagnosis is based on fear of hostile military activity. The Board, thus, finds that the Veteran lay statements about fearing for his life and being attacked during service to be credible evidence to support an in-service stressor. In addition, the Board notes that the evidence of the place and circumstances of the Veteran's service is consistent with his statements. The Veteran's DD-214 indicated that his military occupational specialty (MOS) was as a law enforcement specialist. Military personnel records from January 1989 noted the Veteran’s deployment to Panama and it described the Veteran as being deployed to a “hostile area.” The Board also notes that there is evidence supporting the Veteran’s lay statements that his PTSD symptoms manifested due to pressure he experienced in service. The Veteran stated in the July 2013 VA examination that he felt that he was over-disciplined and that he felt singled out by his superiors. He stated that this pressure manifested into him being sent to receive mental health treatment in service. The Veteran’s military personnel records included several disciplinary records that documented the Veteran’s behavioral issues while in service. An August 1988 service treatment record (STR) also indicated that the Veteran was sent for a mental health evaluation after he punched a wall in response to the pressures of being dorm chief. Another August 1988 STR provided the Veteran with a provisional diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed emotional features. Additionally, the Board finds that there is evidence of nexus between the Veteran’s in-service stressors and his diagnosed PTSD with associated depression. In a July 2013 VA examination, the examiner determined that the Veteran’s PTSD was at least as likely as not related to his in-service stressors. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s lay statements regarding mental health treatment in service were supported by the Veteran’s file. The Board notes that the examiner’s opinion is based on his examination of the Veteran and his review of the Veteran's claims file. Moreover, there is no contrary medical opinion on file. In affording the Veteran the benefit-of-the-doubt, as required by VA law and regulations, the Board finds that as there is an accepted in-service stressor, a diagnosis of PTSD during the appeal period, and a psychologist's opinion that the stressor resulted in PTSD. Accordingly, service connection for PTSD with depression is warranted. J. Connolly Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board AK 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.