Citation Nr: 21041524 Decision Date: 07/09/21 Archive Date: 07/09/21 DOCKET NO. 16-19 665 DATE: July 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is granted. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, currently diagnosed as PTSD, is related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 2001 to August 2004 after which he served in the Air force Reserve with a documented period of active duty for training (ADT) from January to July 2005. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by a VA Regional Office (RO). In September 2020, the Board remanded the issue on appeal for additional development related to his claimed stressors and for an examination. A review of the claims file now shows that there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board notes, that VA sent a letter dated in June 2021 to the Veteran and his representative notifying them that the Veteran's Law Judge (VLJ) who presided over his July 2019 hearing is no longer at the Board and his appeal would be reassigned to another VLJ pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.106(b). At the time of this decision, VA has not received a response. However, there is no prejudice to the Veteran given the full grant of his claim for service connection for PTSD as discussed below. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008). Service Connection Generally, a veteran is entitled to service connection for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may also 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). To substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of (1) a current disability (for which service connection is sought); (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a causal connection between the disease or injury in service and the current disability. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163(Fed. Cir. 2004). In addition, service connection for PTSD specifically requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) (i.e., under the criteria of DSM 5); 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). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Here, the Veteran seeks service connection for PTSD, which he contends is the result of his military service. In particular, the Veteran asserts that while stationed at an air base in Kyrgyzstan from November 2002 to June 2003 he experienced multiple air raid sirens, vehicles attempting to drive through protective barriers, base evacuations due to threats of terrorist activity, and an airplane crash of a Spanish Airforce aircraft resulting in multiple casualties including known friends of the Veteran. At the outset, the Board notes that there is a current diagnosis of PTSD. Indeed, the medical evidence of record unambiguously indicates a diagnosis of PTSD since at least 2017. Most recently, in a March 2021 VA examination, the examiner confirmed that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that meets the criteria under the DSM-5. As to the asserted stressors, the Veteran's military records confirm his service in Kyrgyzstan as an aerospace ground crewman. Moreover, the RO was able to verify the Veteran's claimed stressor of a plane crash that occurred in May 2003. See March 2021 Records Research Response. It was also confirmed that 62 Spanish airmen and soldiers were killed as a result of the crash. The RO did not provide any determination as to the Veteran's other claimed stressors of air raid sirens and vehicles attempting to pass through protective barriers. Nonetheless, the Board finds the Veteran's testimony and lay statements of record describing in-service events plausible and credible. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2); see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 478, 511 (1995). Given the above, the only remaining question for the Board is whether the currently diagnosed PTSD is related to the in-service stressors. In this regard, the Veteran has testified that his symptoms of insomnia and depression began during and continued after service. However, he did not seek treatment during service for he feared it would prevent him from obtaining a job in law enforcement. See July 2019 Hearing P 6. He first sought treatment for his mental health in 2017 at which time Dr. M.M. first diagnosed him with PTSD. In a February 2017 private examination by Dr. M.M, it was reported that the Veteran began having bouts of insomnia, "not sleeping for a few days but not leaving my room either...". The Veteran also indicated that he began to isolate himself and lived off his savings for almost a year after service. Additionally, the Veteran stated while employed as a corrections officer, he reported feeling often "triggered by his work environment" which raised his overall anxiety level. The Veteran further reported to Dr. M.M. that these symptoms were related to his service while stationed in Kyrgyzstan. He reported experiencing base evacuations in middle of night due to threats of terrorism and/or trucks trying to drive through protective barriers, a crash of a Spanish Aircraft involving deaths, along with air raid sirens waking him up or going off while on duty and not knowing why they were going off and feeling extremely vulnerable and unsafe. In March 2021, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination where the examiner confirmed the Veteran's diagnosis of PTSD. At that time, the Veteran again described in-service stressors of air raid sirens and a plane crash involving the deaths of Spanish airmen of whom some he knew personally. The examiner ultimately found that the reported in-service stressors were enough to meet the criterion to support a diagnosis of PTSD. It was explained that the Veteran's PTSD is "the result of his military service and related to his fear of in-service hostile military or terrorist activity; specifically, his deployment to Kyrgyzstan where he learned of friends dying in a military plane crash and experienced multiple air raid sirens. Therefore, the [Veteran's] PTSD is at least as likely as not caused by his military service". The Board finds that that March 2021 VA opinion is persuasive and consistent with the evidence of record. In particular, throughout the appeal, he has consistently reported the same stressors. The most serious of which, involved the plane crash and resulting deaths of known Spanish airmen, which subsequently has been verified. After the plane crashed, the Veteran has reported that he began to fear for his life stating, "am I really going to be able to get home". See July 2019 Hearing P 4. After consideration of the Veteran's reported stressors, medical history, and symptoms, the March 2021 VA examiner attributed the Veteran's PTSD to in-service stressful incidents. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999) (the probative value of a physician's statement is dependent, in part, upon the extent to which it reflects "clinical data or other rationale to support his opinion"). See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000) (factors for assessing the probative value of a medical opinion include the thoroughness and detail of the opinion). The Board acknowledges that the plane crash leading to the Spanish airmen and soldier deaths has been attributed to weather and not to raids. Moreover, the Board recognizes, as previously noted, that the RO did not verify the stressors of air raid sirens and vehicles attempting to pass through protective barriers. However, and regardless, the fact remains that the airplane crash and associated deaths were indeed corroborated. Moreover, the plane crash and associated deaths were, at least in part, the basis for the diagnosis of PTSD during both, the private examination of November 2017 and the March 2021 VA examination. Therefore, it is irrelevant to the Board the actual cause of the plane crash and more important the fact that the plane crash did indeed happen and that there were dozens of deaths associated with it as reported by the Veteran. Finally, as previously noted, the Board has found the Veteran's testimony and lay statements of record describing in-service events plausible and credible. Given the above, the Board finds that there is no basis on which to disassociate the current diagnosis of PTSD from the asserted in-service stressors in particular the plane crash leading to dozens of deaths. As such, service connection for PTSD is warranted and the appeal is granted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. E. I. VELEZ Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. F. Minnitte, Attorney Advisor 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.