Citation Nr: 22015476 Decision Date: 03/17/22 Archive Date: 03/17/22 DOCKET NO. 17-56 624 DATE: March 17, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 2006 to July 2014. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The Veteran contends that his PTSD is due to his active military service. The Veteran reported that in May 2011 he was deployed in a submarine as the Fire Control Technician. He described the mission as observing and recording a critical event without being detected and reported controlling the periscope during this mission as well as the weapons systems. He described observing weapons being used through the periscope, when he observed large weapons being used against the target that he is watching through his periscope. He reported witnessing directly large weapons being used against US troops that involved people being hurt and dying through the periscope at a distance of about 200 yards. He also reported significant guilt and responsibility about stopping this attack, as he was not able to act and use weapons because the commanders did not order a strike. In addition, he reported being noticed on this mission at which point the submarine was in danger of being attacked and he was responsible for some roles of coordinating this retreat. He described this situation as being highly pressured and involved significant threat to the lives of people on the submarine. See July 2015 VA examination. The Veteran was diagnosed with PTSD during the July 2015 VA examination and the examiner linked the diagnosis to the Veteran's statements. However, the Veteran's stressor was not corroborated. In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. He testified that he initially felt anxious because people were fired or were moved to different boats because of falsifying deck logs. Then, the Veteran testified that they were off the coast "of a country" and their job was to record and watch weapons testing for new weapons. The "country" had their fleet come, armed, and actively firing weapons, and the Veteran was in control of the boat, and he testified that if they would have seen them, they would have attacked them. The Veteran testified that he feared for his life and had a meltdown. The Veteran's buddy's submitted statements on his behalf that the Veteran was on the boat, and there were live weapons fired. The Veteran's spouse provided a witness statement that discussed the Veteran's symptoms. The Veteran also submitted a list of his symptoms and indicated that he was experiencing these symptoms since the day of the incident. In the July 2015 deferred rating decision, the RO indicated that there is no evidence available showing the Veteran served in combat or in a hostile theater. There is no evidence of a combat award. The Veteran's DD214 notes his service as a Navy MM2 and attendance at Submarine Fire Control Tech "A" school. The RO indicated that under 3.304(f)(1), a Veteran's statement is sufficient only when there is evidence the Vet engaged in combat or we can concede the Veteran served in an area of hostile military activity. Neither is the case here. In August 2015, the Veteran submitted a statement in support of the claim. He was on the USS Hampton and the stressful incident occurred in the Gulf of Oman/Red Sea movement during operator, between March 2011 and May 2011, and no further details. In the August 2015 deferred rating the RO indicated that the Veteran's DD214 does not reflect campaign medals or danger pay areas. In October 2015, the VSO sent an email attempting to verify the Veteran's boats patrols, region, dates, and any surfacing or port calls that it may have been made. The VSO acknowledged that the reports may be classified as it was a recent period. In November 2015, the JSRRC report revealed that the USS Hampton did not document any surveillance of an attack in the Gulf of Oman from March 2011 to May 2011, but the deck logs were not available. (The summary indicated during May 2011, but the notes included encompass the entire time period). In August 2016, the Veteran indicated that he revealed as much information as he could without compromising information that was classified. In July 2017, the Naval History and Heritage Command responded to a request from the RO requesting the deck logs. The Naval History and Heritage Command indicated that they do not have any record of receiving any deck logs from the ship for the entirety of 2011. They did however indicate that if more details were provided about the alleged stressor(s) they may be able to assist in locating the appropriate records. The Board finds that the RO did not follow-up with the Veteran requesting more information after the response from the Naval History and Heritage Command or request what information the Naval History and Heritage Command requires to help corroborate the Veteran's testimony, and thus a remand is necessary to fully develop the Veteran's claim. The Board notes, that at this point the Board does not have enough information to corroborate the Veteran's stressor. The Veteran is encouraged to provide more information that would allow an entity to corroborate the Veteran's testimony. The Board finds that the witness statements provided are too vague, and any statement provided should focus on corroborating the claimed stressor. The Board notes that, although VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in substantiating his claims, that duty is not a one-way street, and it is important that he make efforts to assist VA in gathering evidence relevant to his claim. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 224 (2000); see also Hurd v. West, 13 Vet. App. 449, 452 (2000). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The RO should follow-up with the Naval History and Heritage Command, as they indicated that they may be able to help corroborate the Veteran's statements. (a.) If the Naval History and Heritage Command suggests any additional sources of information the Veteran may be able to provide, the RO should send a letter informing the Veteran of these findings. (b.) If the Naval History and Heritage Command suggests any further development the RO should adhere to those recommendations. (c.) If there is no specific evidence requested by the Naval History and Heritage Command, the RO should send the Veteran a VA Form 21-0781 Statement in Support of Claim for post-traumatic stress disorder. 2. The RO must also consider if there are any other avenues of searching for the Veteran's deck logs, that have not been performed and request any additional searches. Efforts to obtain those records must continue until it is concluded that the records sought do not exist or that further efforts to obtain those records would be futile. Any inability to obtain the records must be documented in the record and the Veteran should be notified of that inability in a manner consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). A copy of the letter informing the Veteran of the inability to obtain the records must be associated with the record. 3. Then, the Veteran's claim must be readjudicated. If the benefit sought on appeal is not granted to the Veteran's satisfaction, the Veteran and his representative must be provided a Supplemental Statement of the Case and be given an adequate opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate action. MICHAEL MARTIN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Quist Associate 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.