Citation Nr: 21040065 Decision Date: 07/02/21 Archive Date: 07/02/21 DOCKET NO. 20-03 123 DATE: July 2, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is related to service, to include military sexual trauma (MST) sustained therein. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD with major depressive disorder and generalized anxiety disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1154, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1987 to February 1991. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran requested a personal hearing before a member of the Board in her January 2020 Substantive Appeal. In a May 2021 letter, the Veteran, through her representative, cancelled her request for a hearing. Consequently, the Veteran's request for a personal hearing is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e). At the outset, the Board notes that the Veteran did not submit a notice of disagreement (VA Form 21-0958) following the original denial of her claim for PTSD in January 2016. 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (a). However, she submitted new and material evidence within one year after the initial denial. Specifically, the Veteran submitted evidence showing a current diagnosis of PTSD and an indication of a nexus to service. Consequently, the original claim remained pending. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (b). Service Connection - Acquired Psychiatric Disorder The Veteran asserts that her psychiatric disorder is related to service. Specifically, she has reported suffering mental anguish after repeatedly singing cadences glorifying murder and death during her eight weeks of basic training. She also reported that her nightly rifle training gave her a lot of anxiety. She stated that she had to fire her M-16 and low crawl underneath wire as bullets were fired overhead. It caused her nightmares where she would wake up and thought she smelled burning flesh and fired rounds. Finally, she reported that she was repeatedly groped by another soldier at Fort Campbell in 1987. He told her that if she told anyone, she would not be believed, and most likely demoted or discharged. She requested a change in station, but provided another reason because her fear of retaliation. 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, 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). Service connection for PTSD has unique evidentiary requirements. It generally requires (1) medical evidence diagnosing PTSD in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between a Veteran's present 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). In the context of a PTSD claim based on military sexual trauma, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit observed that 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5) specifically states that a medical opinion may be used to corroborate a personal-assault stressor, noting "medical opinion evidence may be submitted for use in determining whether the occurrence of a stressor is corroborated." See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 683 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011); see also Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272 (1999). Thus, courts have made plain that, a claim for service connection for PTSD based on in-service personal assault, favorable medical evidence diagnosing PTSD based on the Veteran's account of in-service assault must be weighed against all other evidence of record when determining whether the claimed in-service personal assault has been corroborated. See Menegassi, 638 F.3d at 1382 n.1. First, the Veteran has current psychiatric diagnoses, to include PTSD, major depressive disorder, and generalized anxiety disorder. See, e.g., May 2017 PTSD Disability Benefits Questionnaire. Second, the record reflects that her current diagnoses are related to her reported in-service stressors. A December 2016 letter from K.S., a Senior Associate in Psychiatry at Vanderbilt University Medical Center's Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Health, stated that the Veteran's PTSD "undeniably" developed during service, noting her stressors regarding cadences and night rifle training. The report of a September 2017 VA PTSD examination noted that the Veteran had a DSM-5 diagnosis of PTSD based on her stressor regarding the obligatory cadences. And in an April 2021 Independent Medical Evaluation Report, the examining psychologist opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran's PTSD and major depressive disorder are due to her active duty-related stressors. Finally, there is credible evidence that a claimed stressor occurred. The Board acknowledges that the RO was unable to verify any of the Veteran's claimed stressors. However, as noted above, a medical opinion may be used to corroborate a personal-assault stressor. In this case, the April 2021 examiner opined that it was more likely than not that the Veteran's MST occurred. The examiner based his opinion on markers, including buddy statements that described the Veteran's personality changes during and following active duty. Based on the lay and medical evidence of record, 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 an acquired psychiatric disorder 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 Roya Bahrami, 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.