Citation Nr: 21025725 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-09 433 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has PTSD that is etiologically related to stressors that occurred during active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Marine Corps (USMC) from November 1987 to July 1989. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In August 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. In March 2019, the Board remanded the Veteran’s claim for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for further appellate action. The Veteran contends that his PTSD is related to in-service trauma he experienced from his superiors while serving in the USMC. During the August 2018 hearing, the Veteran related that while stationed at Camp Pendleton, he was persistently belittled and tormented by his superiors for his back and bilateral foot condition, which prevented him from working in his military occupation specialty. The Board notes that in May 2013, the VA issued a formal finding of a lack of information required to corroborate the Veteran’s reported in-service trauma. The Veteran’s service treatment records are unremarkable for any complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to a psychiatric disability. VA outpatient treatment reports reflect that a diagnosis of PTSD was suggested based on a self-reported assessment in March 2014. A diagnosis of PTSD was rendered in April 2014. Associated with the claims file is a May 2014 statement from the Veteran’s treating psychiatrist at VA. The clinician indicated that the Veteran was under his care for mood and anxiety problems which began during service in 1988. The clinician stated that the Veteran suffered a back injury and mistreatment by his supervisors which precipitated severe mood, anxiety, hypervigilance, sleep, irritability, and ongoing intrusive thoughts of mistreatment that continue to affect his life. The clinician concluded that the Veteran warrants consideration for mood and anxiety problems. At a VA examination in October 2014, the Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD. The examiner indicated that the Veteran’s stressors included being taunted, traumatized, and threatened by a battalion sergeant. The Veteran noted that his battalion sergeant thought he was faking his physical injuries following a back injury, and forced him to perform duties that exacerbated his condition. He indicated that he was also kicked in the back by the battalion sergeant on one occasion. At a December 2015 VA examination, the Veteran again reported the abuse by his superior during service. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and persistent depressive disorder and opined that PTSD is less likely than not related to any verified trauma or event. The examiner indicated that the Veteran’s symptoms are consistent with a diagnosis of PTSD following service, but there is no specific event documented or evidenced by his records. The examiner indicated that the only service member aside from the battalion sergeant and the Veteran who witnessed the Veteran’s abuse during service did not provide a statement. The examiner concluded that while a diagnosis of PTSD was made, there is no clear supporting evidence to state what etiology resulted in the PTSD. At a January 2020 VA examination, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and opined that it was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the in-service event, injury, or illness. The examiner’s rationale was that the while there are no records from active duty to substantiate the Veteran’s claims or markers to support his allegations, his diagnosis of PTSD rendered at the VA examination in 2014 was based on his report of having to do physical labor and physical assault during service. The examiner indicated that the Veteran focused his hearing testimony and the current examination on his concept of being verbally abused which is not a criterion A PTSD stressor. However, the diagnosis of PTSD and the Veteran meeting criterion A is based on his physical integrity being threatened by being forced to do manual labor while injured as well as his report of being physically abused/kicked by his sergeant noted at the 2014 VA examination. In October 2020, an addendum opinion was obtained from the January 2020 VA examiner. The examiner indicated that she was responding to a request to provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s personal trauma stressor event supporting the PTSD diagnosis is at least as likely as not supported by or consistent with an in-service marker evidence. The examiner indicated that there is no in-service marker evidence. In this case, the Board finds that service connection for PTSD is warranted. The Board finds that the January 2020 VA medical opinion is adequate. In this regard, the examiner interviewed the Veteran, thoroughly reviewed and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. The examiner specifically considered the Veteran’s reported stressors and included a discussion as how the stressors met the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. Additionally, the examiner relied on her own expertise, knowledge, and training when drafting the report. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The Board acknowledges that there is medical evidence against the claim in the form of another VA medical opinion. The 2015 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD but found that the Veteran’s stressors are not verified. However, the Board finds that the Veteran has provided credible testimony regarding his stressors in service and he has consistently reported the in-service stressors at the examinations of record. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence for and against the claim is at least in equipoise. Therefore, the benefit of the doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran, and entitlement to service connection for PTSD is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Cryan, 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.