Citation Nr: 21026521 Decision Date: 05/03/21 Archive Date: 05/03/21 DOCKET NO. 15-45 389 DATE: May 3, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's psychiatric disability is etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a psychiatric disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the United States Army from January 1990 to July 1994. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2020, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. The Veteran has contended that his psychiatric disability, claimed as PTSD, is related to his active service. Specifically, in both testimony and statements he reported that he served on a special weapons team which hauled nuclear chemical weapons and required trainings which consisted of practicing for ambushes or blocked roads and necessitated destruction of the weapons. He also reported that during a jump from a helicopter, a fellow service member jumped on his back and he fell 100 feet with the other service member on his back. He reported that he feared he would not live and was knocked out when he landed resulting in injuries to his knees and back, and headaches, all of which have now been service-connected. Finally, he reported that he assisted during the Green Ramp Accident at Fort Bragg in March 1994 when a fighter jet crashed and resulted in many casualties and a bad fire. The Board finds that the Veteran has credibly reported his in-service stressors during both his hearing testimony and in various statements associated with the claims file and he has presented various articles and information pertaining to the reported stressors. Therefore, Board concedes the claimed in-service stressors. Service treatment records (STRs) are silent for any symptoms related to, treatment for, or a diagnosis of a psychiatric disability. Associated with the claims file is an undated statement from A. Hill, M.D. Dr. Hill noted that the Veteran visited his office in July 2016 to obtain a statement. Dr. Hill reported that he treated the Veteran from October 2005 to August 2007 when he transferred care to another clinician. Dr. Hill indicated that the Veteran has been suffering from PTSD due to a plane crash associated with his military duties in March 1994. Post-service VA outpatient treatment reports reveal a diagnosis of PTSD in September 2015. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2015 at which time the examiner diagnosed PTSD with associated depressed mood, insomnia, and alcohol use disorder. The diagnosis of PTSD was based on psychiatric testing and the Veteran's reported stressor related to being ready to self-destruct weapons if captured by the enemy during training exercises. The clinician opined that PTSD was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by service. The examiner reported that the Veteran met the criteria for a DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition) for a diagnosis of PTSD, the Veteran showed no signs or significant exaggeration or feigning of mental disorder symptoms during the interview or when comparing his self-report the evidence of record, and there was no evidence of any other traumatic experiences to account for the Veteran's current symptoms. The examiner concluded that the Veteran's symptoms are logically related to and consistent with the traumatic stressors he reported (i.e., multiple combat training experiences with fear of hostile military/terrorist activity). The examiner, a VA psychologist, relied on her own training, knowledge, and expertise in rendering her opinion. For this reason, the opinion is considered highly probative and given considerable weight. Moreover, the Board notes that lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. In fact, competent medical evidence is not necessarily required when the determinative issue involves either medical etiology or a medical diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Veteran is competent to identify symptoms related to a psychiatric disability, and report on the chronicity of symptomatology since active service. Moreover, his statements have been found credible. In sum, the Board has conceded the Veteran's in-service stressors. The Veteran has competently and credibly reported that that he first experienced symptoms associated with a psychiatric disability while in active service and that he has continued to experience symptoms since that time, and those statements have been found credible by the Board. Furthermore, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of a psychiatric disability that a VA psychologist has determined is related to his active service. Accordingly, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is warranted. 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.