POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The Veteran served from May 2005 to March 2017, including service as a counterterrorism language analyst. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for PTSD, claiming that the traumatic video footage and calls encountered during his intelligence analysis duties caused the condition. The Veteran testified about his role in mapping terrorist networks and reviewing media depicting violent acts. A July 2021 VA PTSD examination diagnosed the Veteran with PTSD, identifying the stressor as viewing gruesome terrorist activities and inhumane acts captured on media. The VA examiner opined that the stressor met diagnostic criteria and was at least as likely as not caused by his service. Additionally, a private psychological assessment in October 2022 concluded that the Veteran suffers from PTSD, more likely than not a direct result of his counterterrorism language expert experiences during active service. The Board found the evidence competent and probative, demonstrating that PTSD was incurred during or related to his service. Applying the benefit of the doubt, service connection for PTSD was granted.

Rationale

Competent evidence of current disability (PTSD diagnosis); In-service stressor identified and deemed adequate; Nexus opinion from VA examiner (at least as likely as not); Favorable opinion from private examiner (more likely than not)

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039878
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 210730-175872
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The competent and probative evidence demonstrates that posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was incurred during or is otherwise related to the Veteran's period of active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric condition, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 4.125.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active duty service from May 2005 to March 2017.

The matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2021 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In the July 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD), the Veteran elected the Hearing option.  The Veteran testified before the Board on January 27, 2025.  A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file.

Under the Hearing option, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his or her representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a).

Service Connection

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

As a general matter, establishing service connection requires competent evidence of (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.

Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor occurred.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f).

The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences he can observe. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a). The VA must give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits.  Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009).

The standard of proof to be applied in decisions on claims for veteran's benefits is set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 5107.  Under § 5107(b) and Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001), a claimant is to receive the benefit of the doubt when there is an "approximate balance" of positive and negative evidence, which Ortiz interpreted as "nearly equal" evidence.  Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 780-81 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

1. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

The Veteran testified that the calls, files, pictures, and videos he encountered during his service as an intelligence analyst caused PTSD. The Veteran's DD Form 214 establishes that his primary specialty was that of a cryptologic language analyst. He had military education in the language of Arabic.

The Veteran underwent an initial PTSD examination in July 2021.  The examiner found that the Veteran met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD.  The examiner identified the stressor event as follows:  The Veteran served as a counterterrorism language analyst with the 31st Intelligence Squadron at Fort Gordon from 2011
2021) (en banc).

1. Service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder to include anxiety, depression, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

The Veteran testified that the calls, files, pictures, and videos he encountered during his service as an intelligence analyst caused PTSD. The Veteran's DD Form 214 establishes that his primary specialty was that of a cryptologic language analyst. He had military education in the language of Arabic.

The Veteran underwent an initial PTSD examination in July 2021.  The examiner found that the Veteran met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD.  The examiner identified the stressor event as follows:  The Veteran served as a counterterrorism language analyst with the 31st Intelligence Squadron at Fort Gordon from 2011 to 2017.  In this position, the veteran viewed video footage of numerous killings by various methods, serious injuries, and other gruesome terrorist activities.  In this position, he was subjected to many gory, brutal, and in-humane acts captured on media by the Middle Eastern terrorist.  The examiner concluded that the stressor met diagnostic criterion A and was adequate to support the diagnosis of PTSD.  The examiner opined that PTSD is at least as likely as not caused by the Intelligence Squadron during service.

The Veteran submitted a private October 2022 psychological assessment and opinion during the evidentiary window following his Board hearing.  The private examiner concluded that as a result of his experiences as a counterterrorism language analysis, the Veteran suffers from PTSD.  The private examiner explained how the Veteran's symptom constellation satisfy the DSM-5 criteria for PTSD.  He opined that it is more likely than not that the Veteran's PTSD is a direct result of his experiences as counterterrorism language expert during active service.

At his January 2025 Board hearing, the Veteran testified under oath as to his duties in service.  As an Arabic linguist and intelligence analyst, he indicated it was his job to map out terrorist networks. He did this by listening to calls, reviewing pictures and watching videos some of which depicted traumatic events including killings.  

Considering the foregoing, the Board finds that the competent and probative evidence demonstrates that posttraumatic stress disorder was incurred during or is otherwise related to the Veteran's period of active service.  Accordingly, the claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include posttraumatic stress disorder, is granted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. 

 

K. Parakkal

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	B Jackson, M.

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.