POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the U.S. Marine Corps from June 2011 to June 2016, appeals the denial of service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder. The Veteran claims these conditions resulted from physical assaults experienced during service, specifically while sleeping in boot camp. The Board reviewed new and relevant evidence, including lay statements from a fellow servicemember and the Veteran's mother and brother, which detailed the Veteran's in-service trauma and subsequent behavioral changes. The Veteran's own testimony consistently described physical assaults during service. Two VA examinations, one in October 2020 and subsequent ones in November 2020 and April 2021, diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD and major depressive disorder. The October 2020 VA examiner opined that the Veteran's anxiety related to PTSD and depression were at least as likely as not incurred due to the personal trauma during service, noting symptoms began after the assault and denying prior mental health concerns. The later VA examiners also found a clear presentation of severe PTSD and MDD resulting from active duty experiences. The Board found these VA opinions corroborated the existence of the military stressor, and with the evidence in equipoise, granted service connection for both PTSD and major depressive disorder.

Rationale

New and relevant evidence received sufficient to readjudicate claim.; Lay statements from fellow servicemember and family corroborate trauma and behavioral changes.; VA examiners diagnosed PTSD and found it at least as likely as not related to service trauma.; Evidence in equipoise, granting service connection.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26037002
Decision Date: 04/21/26	Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 210602-163912
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence has been received sufficient to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and major depressive disorder. 

Entitlement to service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. A February 2021 rating decision denied service connection for PTSD; the evidence associated with the claims file subsequent to that final decision is not previously of record and tends to prove or disprove the claim.

2. PTSD and major depressive disorder are as likely as not attributable to service.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(d), 3.2501(a).

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304(f).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps. from June 2011 to June 2016. 

On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 U.S.C.), 131 Stat. 1105 (2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). AMA became effective on February 19, 2019.

In a February 2021 rating decision, the AOJ denied the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In February 2021, the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim. In a May 2021 rating decision, the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence was not submitted to readjudicate the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In June 2021, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement, VA Form 10182 and elected the hearing lane. Under the AMA, when a claimant seeks appellate review through the Board's hearing docket, the Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decision on appeal, additional evidence submitted on the date of the Board hearing (including testimony), and additional evidence submitted within 90 days of the hearing. 38 U.S.C. § 7113(b). The Veteran was afforded a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in June 2024. This decision has been written consistent with the new AMA framework.

New and relevant evidence has been received sufficient to readjudicate the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD

In a February 2021 rating decision, the AOJ denied the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. In February 2021, the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim. In a May 2021 rating decision, the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence was not submitted to readjudicate the claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD.

The evidence received since the February 2021 decision includes a lay statement from a fellow servicemember detailing the Veteran's behaviour in service and his traumatic experiences in bootcamp. This evidence is new as it was not before the agency decision makers at the time of the February 2021 rating decision, and it is relevant as it provides additional evidence related to the relevant issue. Therefore, the Board finds that new and relevant evidence has been received, and the criteria to reopen the Veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD are met.

Entitlement to service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

There are particular requirements for establishing PTSD in 38 C.F.R. §3.304(f), that are separate from those for establishing service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 
1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

There are particular requirements for establishing PTSD in 38 C.F.R. §3.304(f), that are separate from those for establishing service connection generally. Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In order to be entitled to service connection for PTSD, there must be medical evidence of PTSD, medical evidence that establishes a link between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

If a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than a veteran's service records may corroborate his/her account of the stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. Id. Behavior changes may constitute credible supporting evidence of a stressor. Id.

Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources. Examples of behavior changes that may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include, but are not limited to: a request for a 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 behavior changes. Id. It is well established that a medical opinion may be used to corroborate a personal-assault stressor. See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2011).

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. In evaluating a claim, the Board must determine the value of all evidence submitted, including lay and medical evidence. 38 U.S.C. §1154(a); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The Veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD, which he attributes to physical assault that occurred several times during service while he was sleeping. The Veteran recalled being punched in the face and body several times during these assaults. The record reflects that the October 2020 VA examiner and November 2020/April 2021 VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD as a result of these incidents. 

Service connection for PTSD mandates credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. The AOJ has been unable to verify the event. The Veteran, however, has consistently reported physical assaults (slapping, punching) during service when he was sleeping in boot camp due to his snoring. Lay statements from the Veteran's brother and a fellow service member discuss the Veteran's in service trauma as told to them by the Veteran. Lay statements from the Veteran's mother and brother have also been submitted detailing the Veteran's change in behavior after returning from service.

The October 2020 VA examiner specifically found that the "Veteran's anxiety (as it relates to his PTSD) and depression is at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by the personal trauma during service. Though he reportedly did not seek services in the military, he noted that his symptoms occurred after the assault and denied any history of mental health concerns prior to the military. His most recent medical records from the VA noted similarly." In November 2020 and April 2021, another VA examiner found within a reasonable degree of scientific-psychological certainty that the Veteran clearly presented with a severe PTSD and co-morbid MDD as a result of experiences on active duty. The Board finds that the VA opinions corroborate the existence of the military stressor. Menegassi, 638 F.3d at 1381. As such, and given that the evidence is at least in equipoise, the Board will grant entitlement to service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder. See Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet
 after the assault and denied any history of mental health concerns prior to the military. His most recent medical records from the VA noted similarly." In November 2020 and April 2021, another VA examiner found within a reasonable degree of scientific-psychological certainty that the Veteran clearly presented with a severe PTSD and co-morbid MDD as a result of experiences on active duty. The Board finds that the VA opinions corroborate the existence of the military stressor. Menegassi, 638 F.3d at 1381. As such, and given that the evidence is at least in equipoise, the Board will grant entitlement to service connection for PTSD and major depressive disorder. See Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 531 (2014) ("By requiring only an 'approximate balance of positive and negative evidence'..., the nation, 'in recognition of our debt to our veterans,' has 'taken upon itself the risk of error' in awarding... benefits.").

 

 

T. MAINELLI

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T.S. Willie

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.