Citation Nr: 22014885 Decision Date: 03/15/22 Archive Date: 03/15/22 DOCKET NO. 18-31 741 DATE: March 15, 2022 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted. Entitlement to service connection for anxiety disorder is granted. Entitlement to service connection for major depressive disorder is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his PTSD is at least as likely as not related to an in-service assault. 2. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his anxiety disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service assault. 3. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, his major depressive disorder is at least as likely as not related to an in-service assault. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for PTSD are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125. 2. The criteria for service connection for anxiety disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for service connection for major depressive disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active military service from November 2001 to August 2003. He testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during an October 2021 hearing. This matter is on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision. The Veteran contends that he has PTSD, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder related to an in-service assault. October 2021 Hearing Transcript. The Board concludes that the Veteran has current disabilities that are related to an in-service assault. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection for PTSD requires (1) a current medical diagnosis of PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal nexus between current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The diagnosis of PTSD must comply with the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition, of the American Psychiatric Association (DSM-5). 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a). The law provides that if a PTSD claim is based on an in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than a veteran's service records may corroborate the veteran's account of the stressor incident. Gallegos v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 329 (2008); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Examples of such evidence include but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crises centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. Evidence of behavioral changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these alternate sources. Examples of behavioral changes that may constitute credible evidence of a stressor include, but are not limited to: request for transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavioral changes. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Initially, when affording the Veteran the benefit-of-the-doubt, the Board concludes that the Veteran has a stressor of an in-service assault. The Veteran's testimony indicates that the assault took place at Fort Sill, Oklahoma during training. He testified that after the assault, he gave up on his military service. The Veteran's service personnel records reflect him having unsatisfactory performances during Army Physical Fitness Tests (APFT) in 2002 and 2003, and being counseled for unsatisfactory performance in 2003. The Veteran's former wife submitted a statement in October 2021 showing that the Veteran was fearful after being re-stationed in Oklahoma after being stationed in Alabama. Based on the Veteran's personnel records and his former wife's statement, when affording him the benefit-of-the-doubt, the Board concludes that the evidence supports markers indicating that an in-service assault took place. A July 2018 letter from a VA treatment provider shows the Veteran has current diagnoses of PTSD, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder. Thus, the question becomes whether the current disabilities are related to service. On this question there are probative opinions in favor of and against the claims. The evidence against the claims includes the April 2018 and December 2018 VA examiners' opinions. Neither examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD, anxiety disorder, or major depressive disorder. Both examiners instead diagnosed the Veteran with substance abuse disorders. The April 2018 examiner opined that accurate diagnoses could not be made without resorting to mere speculation. The rationale was that the Veteran's self-report was too inconsistent with past self-report, including the number and nature of traumatic events. The December 2018 examiner similarly opined that the Veteran was considered a non-credible historian, whose self-report had varied widely over time with different providers. They opined that that day, the Veteran did not describe any event in service that would qualify as a Criterion A event necessary for a diagnosis of PTSD. The evidence in favor of the claim includes VA treatment records showing diagnoses of PTSD, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, as well as opinions from his VA treatment provider in January 2018 and July 2018. These opinions explain the inconsistencies reported by the VA examiners, and provide rationales for why the Veteran's PTSD, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder are related to service. The July 2018 opinion discusses in detail the Veteran's reported stressor of an in-service assault and why that met Criterion A for a diagnosis of PTSD. Upon review of the record, the Board finds the evidence to at least be in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran has current diagnoses of PTSD, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder, and whether they are related to service. Accordingly, after resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for PTSD, anxiety disorder, and major depressive disorder is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The appeal is granted in full. A. C. MACKENZIE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Barstow, 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.