Citation Nr: 21032258 Decision Date: 05/26/21 Archive Date: 05/26/21 DOCKET NO. 15-10 486A DATE: May 26, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as major depressive disorder and unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the probative evidence of record demonstrates the acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as major depressive disorder, is related to his active service and his diagnosed unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder is related to a verified in-service stressor. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as major depressive disorder and unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from October 1972 to August 1977. The Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before a Veterans Law Judge of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in July 2018. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. An April 2019 Board decision denied service connection for a back disability and residuals of cracked ribs and left chest contusions. The Board also remanded the claim for service connection to an acquired psychiatric disability for additional development. The Veteran appealed the denial of his claims for service connection for disabilities of the back and ribs and chest to the United States Court of Appeal for Veterans Claims (Court) and then withdrew these claims from appeal prior to the issuance of a decision by the Court. The Veteran was notified in a July 2020 letter that the Veterans Law Judge who held a hearing in July 2018 was no longer at the Board and provided an opportunity for a new hearing. In an August 2020 response, the Veteran notified the Board that he did not wish to have another hearing. In an August 2020 decision, the Board remanded the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder for additional development. In light of the Court's decision in Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (per curiam), the Board has re-characterized the issue on appeal as entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include the most recent diagnosis associated with his reported in-service stressor, unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder. 1. An Acquired Psychiatric Disorder, Diagnosed as Unspecified Trauma or Stressor Related Disorder Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 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). A veteran is entitled to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) when the record before the Secretary contains (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD, (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence establishing a linkage between the claimed in-service stressor and the current symptoms of PTSD. See Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 138 (1997); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). 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. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f). If a PTSD claim is based on the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, then the veteran's lay testimony is sufficient to corroborate the existence of the stressor if (1) a psychiatrist or psychologist "confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor"; (2) the psychiatrist or psychologist's findings are not contradicted by "clear and convincing evidence"; and (3) "the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service." 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (3). In order to grant service connection for PTSD to a non-combat veteran, there must be credible evidence to support the veteran's assertion that the stressful event occurred. A stressor need not be corroborated in every detail. Suozzi v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 307, 311 (1997). Moreover, a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD does not suffice to verify the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressors. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 142 (1997); Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395-396 (1996). See Pentacost v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 124, 128-29 (2002) (holding that corroboration of every detail of a claimed stressor is not required, as 3.304(f) only requires "credible supporting evidence" that the claimed in-service stressor occurred). The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder that is related to his active service and a diagnosis of unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder that is related to a verified in-service stressor. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). In March 2020 and February 2021 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) examinations, the Veteran was diagnosed with unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder, which the March 2020 VA examiner also noted as "subthreshold PTSD," although the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disability did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. The Veteran asserts that, while serving in the Navy, he helped in a rescue mission following a typhoon that had hit Okinawa while he had been stationed there. The Veteran's DD Form 214 reflects foreign and/or sea service of one year, four months and four days and his military occupational specialty (MOS) was that of a service and supply handler. Service treatment records (STRs) reflect the Veteran was treated while stationed at Camp Shields, located in Okinawa. In a response to a request for information, the United States Joint Services Records and Research Center (JSRRC) found that the Veteran's unit, the Naval Mobile Construction Battalion Five (NMCB-5) re-deployed from Camp Shields, Okinawa to homeport at Port Hueneme, California on December 20, 1972, deployed again on July 10, 1973 to Camp Shields, Okinawa, Japan and returned to homeport on February 7, 1974. The JSRRC response noted that, on July 14, 1973, Camp Shields prepared for Typhoon "Billie" and by July 17, 1973, the storm passed without significant damage to the Camp. Accordingly, the evidence of record corroborates the Veteran's statements that he served in Okinawa at the time a typhoon had passed over the area. Giving due consideration to the service department records, the JSRRC information and the lay evidence from the Veteran, the Board finds that this evidence is sufficient to support his contentions. See 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f); See Pentacost, 16 Vet. App. at 128-29. Although the most recent VA opinion in March 2021 found that it was less likely than not that the currently diagnosed unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or disease, the Board observes this rationale was based on the findings in the Board remands in April 2019 and August 2020 that the Veteran's in-service stressors were unverified and inconsistent with his MOS. As noted above, the evidence of record does in fact corroborate the Veteran's reported in-service stressor of exposure to a typhoon while in Okinawa. Accordingly, the March 2021 VA opinion is afforded no probative value. In a March 2020 VA examination and opinion by a different VA examiner, the Veteran was diagnosed with major depressive disorder and unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder. The examiner opined that these mental disorders were at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or disease. The examiner found the Veteran's reports of a history of depression since he left the military credible and the Veteran had credible symptoms of subthreshold PTSD, his unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, and had notable re-experiencing symptoms which were in response to a typhoon rescue mission in Okinawa. As noted above, the Board has found the Veteran's reported in-service stressor has been verified. In a February 2021 VA medical opinion, the VA examiner who provided the March 2021 opinion and diagnosed the Veteran with unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder in a February 2021 VA examination, found that it was as likely as not that the psychiatric disability was incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event or disease. The VA examiner based her opinion on the Veteran's reported stressor of exposure to a typhoon with high winds, which, as noted above, is corroborated by the evidence of record. Taken together, the Veteran's verified in-service stressors, lay statements of a continuity of depression symptoms since service and the current medical diagnoses of major depressive disorder and unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder, at the very least, place the evidence in a state of relative equipoise as to whether a nexus exists between these currently diagnosed disabilities and his active service. Accordingly, resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the probative evidence of record demonstrates he has a current diagnosis of major depressive disorder which is related to the Veteran's active service and a current diagnosis of unspecified trauma or stressor related disorder that is related to a verified in-service stressor. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Saira Spicknall, 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.