Citation Nr: 21042214 Decision Date: 07/12/21 Archive Date: 07/12/21 DOCKET NO. 17-01 265 DATE: July 12, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, is granted. FINDING OF FACT The evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disability, to include unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, is at least as likely as not related to in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for acquired psychiatric disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran has active service from November 1970 to May 1980. This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a November 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In December 2018, the matters were remanded to the RO for additional development. Finding there has been substantial compliance with the Board's remand directives in accordance with Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998), the Board may proceed with appellate review. Acquired psychiatric disability. The Veteran contends that he developed an acquired psychiatric disability as a result of his service in Japan during the Vietnam War. Service connection requires evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after discharge when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In adjudicating these claims, the Board must assess the competence and credibility of the Veteran. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005). Lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology and "may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection." Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 405 (1995) (lay person competent to testify to pain and visible flatness of his feet). VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant. The Board acknowledges an April 2015 diagnosis of PTSD of record. Although provided by a psychiatrist, the diagnosis was not based on DSM-5 criteria as required by 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Accordingly, the PTSD diagnosis is not assigned probative weight as to the question of current disability. (04/23/2015 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) - Veteran Provided, pg. 6). November 2016 treatment records reveal the Veteran was diagnosed with anxiety and depression, based on DSM-5 criteria (09/30/2018 CAPRI, pg. 143). Most recently, the Veteran was afforded a February 2019 examination. Diagnoses of unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder and alcohol use disorder were confirmed (02/11/2019 C&P Exam, pg. 1). Taken together, the Board finds the most probative medical evidence of record confirms the Veteran has a currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disability. The first element of service connection having been met, the Board turns to in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury. The Veteran described working as an aircraft mechanic in service. The nature of his work during service is confirmed by his DD214 (01/06/2020 Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty). The Veteran described being exposed to a large number of casualties in transport caskets when working on planes while stationed in Japan. He also described performing maintenance on a particular aircraft that was used to transport evacuees from Vietnam. The C5 aircraft crashed, with civilians onboard. An internet description of this accident, occurring in April 1975 is of record (03/29/2015 Correspondence). Additionally, the Veteran described exposure to the smell of death. He also described being the subject of a prank by fellow service members that he found traumatizing (02/09/2016 NOD; 02/09/2016 Correspondence; 04/14/2016 Hearing Testimony; 04/23/2015 VA 21-0781, Statement in Support of Claim for PTSD; 09/21/2015 VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim). The Veteran reported that these events have stayed with him, resulting in psychological symptoms. The Board has considered the JSRRC finding that the Veteran's description of the events was not sufficient to allow meaningful research into the events (11/04/2015 VA Memo). The Board finds this finding is outweighed by the lay accounts of the Veteran, which are supported by other evidence of record. His statements are found to be credible given that he has consistently stated the same facts throughout the rating period on appeal. Additionally, the Veteran's performance reports from service confirm his work on C5 aircraft while serving in Japan from 1974 and 1975, encompassing the date of the referenced C5 crash (06/30/2015 Military Personnel Record, pg. 26). The Veteran's performance reports also confirm his exceptional performance during service and suggest a high level of reliability. In light of the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran's statements competent, credible, and highly probative. Finding in-service incidents as described by the Veteran occurred, the Board turns to the nexus element. The Veteran underwent a February 2019 VA examination. The examiner confirmed that the Veteran meets the criteria for the diagnosis of unspecified trauma and stressor-related disorder. The examiner opined the diagnosis at least as likely as not was incurred in or caused by the Veteran's military service experiences (02/11/2019 C&P Exam, pg. 9). The February examiner's opinion considered the Veteran's reported symptoms, described stressors, and found they could be attributed to the in-service events (02/11/2019 C&P Exam, pg. 10). The reasoning provided is well detailed and based on a thorough understanding of the Veteran's service and medical history. Accordingly, the Board finds the February 2019 opinion weighs in favor of the Veteran's claim. After reviewing the totality of the evidence of record, the Board finds that the evidence is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's currently diagnosed acquired psychiatric disability, to include unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, is related to service. In cases where the evidence is in relative equipoise, the claimant prevails. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-54 (1990). Accordingly, the claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include unspecified trauma and stressor related disorder, is granted. Eric S. Leboff Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P. A. Myers 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.