Citation Nr: 22013583 Decision Date: 03/10/22 Archive Date: 03/10/22 DOCKET NO. 17-32 732 DATE: March 10, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran has a diagnosis of PTSD. 2. With resolution of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, he has an in-service stressor that is related to his diagnosis of PTSD. CONCLUSION OF LAW With resolution of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5103(a), 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1970 to October 1973. 1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD The Veteran contends that he has PTSD as a result of an in-service stressors. With resolution of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection is warranted. A summary of the procedural history is as follows. A rating decision in July 1995 denied service connection for PTSD. The Board notes that the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement in September 1997; however, as it was untimely for the July 1995 rating decision, it was taken as a petition to reopen the claim. The Veteran's petition to reopen was denied in April 1998. The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement in December 1998. A February 1999 rating decision and statement of the case again denied the Veteran's petition to reopen his claim. In March 1999, the Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection for PTSD. In December 2009, the Veteran filed a petition to reopen his claim of service connection for PTSD. The petition to reopen was denied in February 2010, March 2010, and May 2010 rating decisions. The Veteran did not appeal the May 2010 rating decision, nor did he file new and material evidence within one year. Therefore, the May 2010 rating decision became final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156 (b), 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.201, 20.302, 20.1103. In September 2015, the Veteran filed a claim to reopen his claim for service connection for PTSD, along with claims of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia and depression. The AOJ denied in an August 2016 rating decision. The Veteran submitted an NOD in September 2016. The March 2017 SOC also addressed the merits of the claim but continued the denial, noting that the evidence the Veteran submitted was not new and material. The Veteran filed his VA Form 9 substantive appeal in August 2018. From September 2015, the record contains treatment records showing diagnoses of PTSD, depressive disorder, and paranoid schizophrenia. The Veteran was afforded a March 2016 VA examination in which the VA examiner opined that it was as least as likely as not that his PTSD is related to his described in-service stressor. In November 2015 and August 2016, service personnel records were added to the claims file, including an August 1973 record showing the Veteran reported that his job was causing hardship and stress and he was afraid of a nervous breakdown as well as indicating a decline in performance from Spring 1972. The Veteran also submitted additional details regarding his alleged stressor in May 2016 and at his October 2021 Board hearing. Looking to the evidence, the Board finds that the military personnel records that were received in 2017 were not of record during the prior decisions and are relevant to the Veteran's claim. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c), which was in effect at the time the records were received and while the new and material evidence claim was pending in 2015, when new and relevant service department records are associated with the file VA will reconsider the claim, notwithstanding [the rule regarding new and material evidence under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a)]. As a result, this is a service connection claim only. Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. Service connection for PTSD requires the following three elements: (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD (presumed to include the adequacy of the PTSD symptomatology and the sufficiency of a claimed in-service stressor in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a)), (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor(s) actually occurred, and (3) medical evidence of a causal relationship between current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor(s). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). In adjudicating a claim for service connection for PTSD, the Board is required to evaluate evidence based on places, types, and circumstances of service, as shown by the veteran's military records and all pertinent medical and lay evidence. Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 60, 66 (1993); see also 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The question of whether a veteran was exposed to a stressor in service is a factual one, and VA adjudicators are not bound to accept uncorroborated accounts of stressors or medical opinions based upon such accounts. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991), aff'd on reconsideration, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991). Hence, whether a stressor was of sufficient gravity to cause or support a diagnosis of PTSD is a question of fact for medical professionals, and whether the evidence establishes the occurrence of stressors is a question of fact for adjudicators. Turning to the evidence, the record contains a current diagnosis of PTSD. In a March 2016 VA examination, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran had a diagnosis of PTSD that was at least as likely as not due to the in-service stressor. The remaining question is whether the Veteran's stressor can be verified. With resolution of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds his reports of his stressor to be credible. Since the inception of his appeal in 1995, the Veteran has described a stressor of witnessing a woman and child being run over in a motor vehicle accident. At the February 2005 VA examination, the Veteran described witnessing a mother and child being run over. He repeated the same story at his October 2021 Board hearing, stating that the traumatic event occurred in May 1972. The Veteran's service personnel records show a decline in his performance reviews around that time. (Continued on the next page) The Board recognizes that the AOJ has not been able to confirm the event. However, the Board finds that the Veteran's statements regarding the stressor event have been consistent, and are consistent with his service. Further, the VA examiner has found his PTSD diagnosis to be a result of his described stressors and he has provided testimony detailing the event that the Board has found credible, and the Board finds that the Veteran is competent to report what he witnessed. The service personnel records show a decline in behavior and performance following the described event. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran's stressor event is corroborated and verified. Given the evidence of record and the Board's finding regarding the Veteran's stressor, the Board finds that all elements of service connection for PTSD are met and the claim is granted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Emily Tamlyn Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Shana Z. Siesser, 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.