POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The Veteran, who served from June 1980 to May 1991, appeals the denial of service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for PTSD due to in-service Military Sexual Trauma (MST). The Board found that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, which is a required element for service connection. The Board also found that the Veteran's claimed in-service stressor was corroborated by credible evidence. This included a buddy statement from a roommate who reported the Veteran discussed the MST and the reprisals he faced, and a VA medical opinion that found the described stressor at least as likely as not supported by and consistent with in-service marker evidence. The Board noted that for MST claims, lay testimony and medical opinions can corroborate the stressor, and found no evidence to weigh against the Veteran's account. Finally, the Board found sufficient evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's PTSD diagnosis and the in-service stressor, citing the VA examiner's opinion that the Veteran had no pre-service mental health issues and his current symptoms are related to the MST. Consequently, service connection for PTSD was granted.

Rationale

Veteran has current PTSD diagnosis.; Stressor corroborated by buddy statement and VA medical opinion.; VA medical opinion found stressor at least as likely as not supported by in-service evidence.; Sufficient evidence of nexus between PTSD and MST stressor.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038551
Decision Date: 04/24/26	Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 210614-165645
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is at least as likely as not due to a corroborated in-service stressor.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.307, 3.309, 4.125.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active service from June 1980 to June 1983 and from December 1990 to May 1991.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2021 Higher-Level Review (HLR) which reviewed a February 2021 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO). The Veteran timely appealed by submitting a June 2021 VA Form 10182 and requested the Hearing docket.

A Board hearing was held on February 26, 2025, a transcript of which has been uploaded to the Veteran's electronic claims file. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the February 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either: (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision and prior to the Board hearing, or; (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, then the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

1. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted.

The Veteran asserts he is entitled to service connection for PTSD due to in-service military sexual trauma (MST).

The Board notes that claims for service connection for PTSD are based on special legal and evidentiary requirements not applicable to other claims for service connection. 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); (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor(s) actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal relationship between the current symptomatology and the specific claimed in-service stressor(s). 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The PTSD diagnosis must be made in accordance with the criteria of Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); see also 80 Fed. Reg. 14308 (Mar. 19, 2015) (final rule) (For all applications for benefits received by VA or pending before the RO on or after August 4, 2014, DSM-5 will apply). 

As noted above, a stressor used to support a PTSD diagnosis must be verified by credible supporting evidence that it occurred, and lay testimony, alone, is generally insufficient to verify the occurrence of a stressor. For claims regarding PTSD based on personal assault (which includes MST), evidence from sources other than the Veteran's service records may corroborate their account of the stressor incident. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). Additionally in the context of such claims, a medical opinion may be used to corroborate a personal-assault stressor. See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 683 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (observing that the Court erred when it determined that a medical opinion based on a post-service examination of a veteran cannot be used to establish the occurrence of a stressor); see also Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272 (1999) (rejecting the requirement that something more than medical nexus evidence is required for credible supporting evidence in personal assault cases). Thus, courts have made plain that in a claim for service connection for PTSD based on in-service personal assault, favorable medical evidence diagnosing PTSD based on the Veteran's account of in-service assault must be weighed against all other evidence of record when determining whether the claimed in-service personal assault has
1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (observing that the Court erred when it determined that a medical opinion based on a post-service examination of a veteran cannot be used to establish the occurrence of a stressor); see also Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272 (1999) (rejecting the requirement that something more than medical nexus evidence is required for credible supporting evidence in personal assault cases). Thus, courts have made plain that in a claim for service connection for PTSD based on in-service personal assault, favorable medical evidence diagnosing PTSD based on the Veteran's account of in-service assault must be weighed against all other evidence of record when determining whether the claimed in-service personal assault has been corroborated. See Menegassi, 638 F.3d at 1382.

Regarding a PTSD diagnosis, VA has conceded the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD. Under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), the Board is bound by favorable findings unless they are rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence. 38?C.F.R. §§?3.104(c); 20.801(a). After a thorough review of the Veteran's electronic claim file, the Board concludes that such clear and unmistakable evidence does not exist. Therefore, the first element of a current diagnosis is satisfied.

Turning to the in-service MST, the Veteran asserts he was subjected to sexual coercion by supervisors during his service at Parris Island. See February 2025 Hearing Transcript. He reports that if he did not comply he would receive punishments in the form of informal disciplinary actions such as "day on stay on" duty. Id. The Veteran reported that these disciplinary actions were not documented, and that discussions with other leadership personnel regarding his treatment similarly were not documented. Id. 

Regarding corroborating evidence, the Veteran reported receiving treatment for related penile issues during service, however, the Board notes that VA has received notice that the Veteran's service treatment records cannot be located and are unavailable. See October 2017 Correspondence. The Veteran also submitted a buddy statement by D.O., his roommate during his service at Parris Island. See October 2017 Buddy / Lay Statement. D.O. reported that the Veteran conversed with him about the MST when they were roommates. Id. D.O. reported that the Veteran also told him about the reprisals he was threatened with if he did not comply. Id. In addition, VA obtained a March 2019 medical opinion regarding the veracity of the Veteran's claimed stressor. Relying on the Veteran and D.O.'s statements, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran's described MST stressor is at least as likely as not supported by and consistent with the in-service marker evidence. See March 2019 C&P Exam. 

The Board finds there is sufficient credible corroborating evidence to meet the second element of service connection for PTSD. As noted above, the general rule limiting acceptable corroborating evidence to a veteran's service records does not apply to cases involving personal assault such as MST. Therefore, the buddy statement and medical opinions are acceptable forms of evidence. The Board notes that there is no evidence of record to suggest that the MST did not occur, so there is no evidence to weigh against the positive evidence. Consequently, as the buddy statement and medical opinion are adequate corroborating evidence, the second element is met.

(Continued on the next page)

?

Turning to the final element, evidence of a nexus between the Veteran's PTSD and the in-service stressor. The Board notes that the Veteran's diagnosis was diagnosed as related to the Veteran's in-service MST stressor. See January 2019 C&P Exam. Furthermore, a VA examiner provided a positive direct nexus opinion, reasoning that the Veteran had no mental health issues prior to his service and his symptoms are related to his MST stressor. See March 2019 C&P Exam. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds there is sufficient evidence of a nexus.

In summation, the Board finds that Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD that is at least as likely as not due to a corroborated in-service stressor. Therefore, the criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. Consequently, service connection must be granted.

 

 

AMANDA G. ALDERMAN

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. J.

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. 


 the criteria for service connection for PTSD have been met. Consequently, service connection must be granted.

 

 

AMANDA G. ALDERMAN

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. J.

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.