Citation Nr: 21028293 Decision Date: 05/10/21 Archive Date: 05/10/21 DOCKET NO. 17-18 838 DATE: May 10, 2021 ORDER Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran is currently diagnosed with PTSD. 2. The Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy during active service. 3. The current PTSD is related to the stressor events that occurred during service. CONCLUSION OF LAW Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1990 to March 1994. The Veteran testified at a November 2019 Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) hearing in this case. Service Connection Legal Authority 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; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (d). Service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in service disease or injury and the current disability. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a). The Board finds that the duties to notify and assist have been met. Neither the Veteran nor the representative has raised contentions regarding notice or assistance. Accordingly, the duties to notify and assist will not be further addressed. Service Connection for PTSD Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. If the evidence establishes a diagnosis of PTSD during service and the claimed stressor is related to that service, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. If the evidence establishes that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and the claimed stressor is related to that combat, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided that the claimed stressor is consistent with the circumstances, conditions, or hardships of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. "Fear of hostile military or terrorist activity" means that a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, such as from an actual or potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon friendly military aircraft, and the veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). If a veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or the claimed stressors are not related to combat, and the stressor is not related to "fear of hostile military or terrorist activity," then the veteran's testimony alone is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of the claimed stressors and his testimony must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128 (1997); Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389 (1996); Dizoglio v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 163 (1996). Furthermore, service department records must support, and not contradict, the claimant's testimony regarding non-combat stressors. Doran v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 283 (1994). The question of whether a veteran was exposed to a stressor in service is a factual one, and VA adjudicators are not bound to accept uncorroborated accounts of stressors or medical opinions based upon such accounts. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991), aff'd on reconsideration, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991). Hence, whether a stressor was of sufficient gravity to cause or support a diagnosis of PTSD is a question of fact for medical professionals, and whether the evidence establishes the occurrence of stressors is a question of fact for adjudicators. In this case, the Veteran has asserted that the PTSD is related to engaging in combat with the enemy during service aboard a ship while serving aboard the U.S.S. Platte. The Veteran has also asserted that his psychiatric disorder is related to a needle breaking off in his arm while undergoing medical treatment aboard the ship. The evidence shows a current diagnosis of PTSD. Specifically, a December 2019 statement by a VA psychologist shows a diagnosis of PTSD. The Board has carefully considered the Veteran's phobia symptoms; however, the Board finds that the diagnosis of PTSD best describes the current psychiatric disorder and the established events during service. Regarding evidence of an in-service injury or stressful event, after review of the lay and medical evidence, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise on the question of whether the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy during active service. In a November 2014 statement, the Veteran reported that rounds were fired at the U.S.S. Platte during his service aboard, and that he was under constant stress during the entire mission in the Persian Gulf due to anticipation of enemy fire. The Board finds this report to be competent, credible, and probative, as it is consistent with other contemporaneous evidence of record including the DD-214; thus, the Board finds that the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and experienced a stressor related to combat during active service. The Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise on the question of whether the PTSD symptoms are related to the recognized stressor. In December 2016, a VA readjustment counselor wrote that the Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD that is a direct result of experiences during active service. The DD Form 214 shows that the Veteran had sea service for a period of one year and one month and received both the Sea Service Deployment Ribbon and a PSD Submarines Letter of Commendation. Lay statements also show that the Veteran engaged in combat with the enemy. The lay statements are credible, as they are consistent with other contemporaneous evidence of record and are both competent and probative. For these reasons, and resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. J. PARKER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs A. Caruso, Attorney for the Board 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.