Citation Nr: 21041080 Decision Date: 07/08/21 Archive Date: 07/08/21 DOCKET NO. 17-18 931 DATE: July 8, 2021 ORDER Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's diagnosed DSM-5 PTSD is casually related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from July 1990 to July 1994 and from January 1996 to January 1998. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a January 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The RO issued a prior rating decision in April 2015 that denied the issue on appeal. The Board notes that the April 2015 decision did not become final, due to the receipt of new and material evidence within one year of the decision, specifically VA treatment records dated April 2016 that indicated a current diagnosis of DSM-5 PTSD. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b) (2016); see also Buie v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 242, 251-52 (2011) (holding that when statements are received within one year of the rating decision, the Board's inquiry is not limited to whether the statements constitute notices of disagreement, but whether they include the submission of new and material evidence under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(b).). Therefore, the issue has been continuously on appeal since the original claim prior to the April 2015 rating decision and no further discussion regarding reopening the claim is necessary. The Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2021. A transcript of that hearing has been associated with the claims file. Service connection for PTSD is granted Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition; 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. 38 C.F.R. § § 3.304 (f). Mental disorder diagnoses are based upon the criteria provided in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), American Psychiatric Association. 38 C.F.R. § 4.125 (a). The Veteran contends that he has a current DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis, which is the result of active service. The Veteran has been diagnosed with DSM-5 PTSD and has been provided with two separate nexus statements linking the diagnosis to his claimed in-service stressors. Furthermore, the Veteran's claimed stressors are sufficiently corroborated by the Veteran's claims file. The Veteran was diagnosed with DSM-5 PTSD in April 2016 by his treating mental health provider. In February 2021, the VA received a letter from a VA licensed clinical social worker, confirming the DSM-5 PTSD diagnosis. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran received a VA examination in March 2015 and that he was not diagnosed with PTSD at that time. The Board finds that the opinions of the Veteran's treating providers are more probative than that of the March 2015 examiner because they are more current, the treating providers have a more extensive understanding of the Veteran's mental health history, and because they are united in the result. The Veteran contends that he witnessed an assault by his fellow servicemen on two other servicemen. The Veteran states that he did not initially report the assault but was ultimately questioned and counseled by a superior officer regarding his involvement. The Veteran contends that he answered truthfully and was soon thereafter attacked by the fellow servicemen in retaliation for having reported the initial assault. The Veteran's personnel files contain a January 1991 note which references counseling for the Veteran for his failure to report a known assault. This document corroborates the Veteran's claimed stressor of witnessing an assault. This corroboration in turn makes the claimed retaliation reasonably likely. The Veteran contends that he did not report or seek treatment for the retaliatory assault. The Veteran has submitted a November 2016 lay statement from his mother which tends to corroborate both claimed stressors. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran's stressors have been verified. The Veteran contends that his current diagnosis of DSM-5 PTSD is related to the corroborated in-service events. The mental health provider who provided the April 2016 diagnosis issued a nexus statement in June 2016, linking the diagnosis to the claimed in-service stressors. The VA licensed clinical social worker stated in her February 2021 letter that the PTSD diagnosis was related to the in-service stressors. The Veteran has been consistent in describing the in-service onset of symptomatology. A February 2021 lay statement from the Veteran's in-service roommate corroborates observable mental health-related symptomatology. The Veteran's personnel records also show a change in character during service as reported by the Veteran's commanding officer. The Veteran's commanding officer supported the Veteran's request for a hardship discharge. At that time, the commanding officer requested a mental health evaluation for the Veteran and therein noted the Veteran's change of character. Although the Board acknowledges that the mental health evaluation is not part of the record, it is not necessary because the evidence of the record is sufficient to grant the Veteran's claim, and a remand would only unnecessarily delay final adjudication. Service connection for PTSD is warranted. Jennifer White Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mookim, Hope P. 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.