Citation Nr: 21032091 Decision Date: 05/25/21 Archive Date: 05/25/21 DOCKET NO. 15-03 847 DATE: May 25, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD relating to an in-service stressor; and there is credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD with major depression are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103, 5107A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from October 1970 to October 1973 and from October 1974 to April 1975. In April 2018, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. The Board remanded this appeal in November 2018 and February 2021. The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for PTSD, which he asserts is related to traumatic experiences that he had during his second period of active service. Specifically, he reports that he began having panic attacks once his ship set sail and he could no longer see land. Although he was given medications for the panic attacks, he could not adjust to life aboard the ship. The executive officer of the ship forced him to monitor the rear of the ship at night without his medications and without a functioning means of communication. He had extreme anxiety during that night, and was discharged shortly thereafter. The experience changed his life. He still has nightmares about the experience, has panic attacks, and has rage issues. In general, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection for PTSD requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). For cases certified to the Board on or after August 4, 2014, such as this case, the diagnosis of PTSD must be in accordance with the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); Schedule for Rating Disabilities-Mental Disorders and Definition of Psychosis for Certain VA Purposes, 79 Fed. Reg. 45,093 (Aug. 4, 2014) (Applicability Date) (updating 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 to reference the DSM-5). Turning to the relevant evidence of record, a November 2019 VA psychology consultation note reflects that a VA psychologist considered the Veteran's current psychiatric symptoms and reported psychiatric history, to include the above-described in-service stressor, and assessed the Veteran with PTSD. Although earlier VA treatment records show that the Veteran's previous VA psychologist felt that the above-described in-service stressor does not satisfy the Criterion A stressor for a PTSD diagnosis, the Board finds no reason to afford that opinion more probative value than to the more recent treatment notes indicating that the Veteran's current VA psychologist apparent belief that the in-service stressor does satisfy Criterion A. Therefore, resolving any remaining doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a current disability of PTSD that has been attributed to his reported in-service stressor. As such, the question remaining for consideration is whether there is credible supporting evidence that the Veteran's reported in-service stressor occurred. The Veteran's service treatment records reflect that he underwent a suitability evaluation in February 1975 due to his complaints of marked anxiety, especially aggravated when at sea, since beginning service aboard a ship. He was assessed with anxiety disorder. Later in February 1975, the Veteran had another psychiatric consultation where he again reported extreme anxiety over being at sea and difficulties adjusting to service in the Navy. He said that he could not tolerate the isolation, restriction, confinement, and living and working conditions aboard the ship, and felt that he would lose control while out to sea and hurt himself or somebody else. While at sea he would freeze up and would be unable to work or concentrate on his duties. The attending physician diagnosed the Veteran with immature personality with inadequate features and noted that the Veteran would probably incur disciplinary problems and perform in an unsatisfactory manner if he were to remain on active duty. Thus, the service treatment records document the Veteran's reports of marked or extreme anxiety while on a ship. They appear to show increasing anxiety over the course of a single month and document the Veteran's dissatisfaction with the restrictions and working conditions on the ship, which is generally consistent with the Veteran's reports of feeling anxious aboard the ship and then experiencing heightened anxiety due to the treatment he received from his superiors. The Board finds that the suitability evaluation and psychiatric consultation documented in the Veteran's service treatment records constitute credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD that is linked to the reported in-service stressor and that there is credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. Any remaining doubt is resolved in the Veteran's favor, and the Board therefore concludes that entitlement to service connection for PTSD must be granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. J. Anthony, 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.