TRAUMA AND STRESSOR DISORDERS

Summary

The Veteran, who served from April 1994 to December 1995, appeals the denial of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran initially claimed PTSD in October 2004, which was denied in July 2005 and became final. In September 2023, the Veteran filed a new claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, later identified as unspecified trauma and stressor disorder. The Board reviewed evidence from the August 2024 AOJ decision. The Veteran reported being sexually assaulted during service, which she consistently reported to the VA. The Board found this Military Sexual Trauma (MST) credible and consistent with her service, noting her anxiety, distrust, and performance issues following the event. A VA examiner linked her current unspecified trauma and stressor disorder to the in-service MST, stating it was at least as likely as not connected. The Board concluded that service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder is warranted, finding the disorder began during service and was linked to the credible MST. The Board noted that all psychiatric disorders are evaluated under the same criteria based on symptoms, not the specific diagnosis.

Rationale

Credible MST reported by Veteran; Symptoms began during service; VA examiner linked disorder to MST and service

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040310
Decision Date: 04/29/26	Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 250813-574744
DATE: April 29, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, diagnosed as unspecified trauma and stressor disorder, is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The Veteran's psychiatric disorder began during active service. Her symptoms included anxiety, and fear of men. Her symptoms negatively impacted her performance at work.

2. The Veteran's decision to leave the military was, in part, due to symptoms caused by her psychiatric disorder.

3. The Veteran was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in October 2004

4. The Veteran's initial psychiatric disorder service connection claim was denied in a July 2005 rating decision; she did not appeal the decision nor submit new and material evidence. The decision is final. 

5. VA received another psychiatric disorder service connection claim on September 11, 2023. The Veteran has been diagnosed with unspecified trauma and stressor disorder during the appeal period. The record does not show a diagnosis of PTSD (nor any other psychiatric disorder) during the appeal period.

6. The Veteran's unspecified trauma and stressor disorder began during her military service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1994 to December 1995.

In May 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of an August 2024 decision. By doing so, the Veteran continuously her September 2023 psychiatric disorder service connection claim. If a claim is continuously pursued, it will be considered filed as of the date of the first claim in the continuously pursued chain, not the date the most recent request for review was received. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.2500(c).

On May 27, 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior August 2024 decision. So, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2024 decision.

In the August 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. So, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2024 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Entitlement to service connection for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder.

The Veteran informed VA that she desires service connection for any acquired psychiatric disorder in September 2023. While that claim was pending, she requested service connection for PTSD. See July 2024 VA Form 20-0995. The AOJ got medical evidence that the Veteran does not have PTSD; instead, she has unspecified trauma and stressor disorder. Also, it is linked to service. See August 2025 VA Medical Opinion. The AOJ denied the Veteran's PTSD claim, but never decided if unspecified trauma and stressor disorder is linked to service. See August 2024 Rating Decision. The Board concludes that service connection is warranted for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder.  

Entitlement to service connection requires evidence of three elements: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 113
 instead, she has unspecified trauma and stressor disorder. Also, it is linked to service. See August 2025 VA Medical Opinion. The AOJ denied the Veteran's PTSD claim, but never decided if unspecified trauma and stressor disorder is linked to service. See August 2024 Rating Decision. The Board concludes that service connection is warranted for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder.  

Entitlement to service connection requires evidence of three elements: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship or nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (2007).

Beginning with the Veteran's service, her (July 2024) entrance examination does not mention any signs, or symptoms of an acquired psychiatric disorder. See Report of Medical Examination. She served as a supply clerk during service; she reports she was sexually assaulted during her service. She has reported it multiple times to VA; her reports have been consistent over time. The Board finds she has credibly reported this in-service military sexual trauma (MST). Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (holding that a lay witness is competent to testify to that which the witness has actually observed and is within the realm of her personal knowledge). She started to observe signs of a psychiatric disorder following the in-service MST, to include anxiety, and distrust in men. Her performance was affected, and she isolated herself. See January 2005 Statement. She expressed that she wanted to get out of the service, and took the opportunity to do so following a pregnancy. See July 2024 Statement. A (July 2024) VA examiner informs the Board that the Veteran's decision to leave the service is a sign this Veteran experienced MST. See August 2024 Medical Opinion. She separated from service in December 1995.

 The Veteran went to college and obtained a master's degree following service. She worked as a social worker around 2002. By that time, her psychiatric disorder symptoms progressed to sleep problems, and conflict with managers. She was diagnosed with PTSD in October 2004. See October 2004 Private Medical Record. VA received her initial psychiatric disorder claim in October 2004; it was denied in July 2005. She did not appeal the decision nor submit new and material evidence; so it became final. 

VA received another psychiatric disorder service connection claim in September 2023. She participated in a July 2024 VA examination for PTSD, which notes the Veteran does not have PTSD. The examiner concluded she has unspecified trauma disorder, and it is linked to in-service MST. See August 2024 VA Medical Opinion (Unspecified trauma and stressor disorder connected to the MST she experienced in service. Her premature exit of the military can be used as evidence to support the claim of MST. Therefore it is at least as likely as not that her symptoms of Unspecified trauma and stressor disorder are connected to the MST she experienced.") In August 2024, the AOJ denied the Veteran's PTSD claim; it did not address whether unspecified trauma and stressor disorder is linked to service. See Rating Decision. 

After reviewing the record, the Board concludes service connection is warranted for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder. The record raises reasonable doubt that the event she experienced (MST) occurred during service. Further, those symptoms continued through service. Her symptoms are linked to her currently diagnosed unspecified trauma disorder. See August 2024 Medical Opinion (opining that unspecified trauma and stressor disorder is linked to service). So, the Board concludes her disorder began during service. Accordingly, service connection is warranted for unspecified trauma and stressor disorder. 

The Board would like the Veteran to know that all psychiatric disorders are evaluated under the same criteria-the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. This means the level of compensation she receives is based on her symptoms-not the diagnosed disability. So, the compensation she receives will be the same whether she is service connected for PTSD, or any other psychiatric disorder (in this case, unspecified trauma and stressor disorder). She must submit another Notice of Disagreement if she wants the Board to address any disagreement with the compensation the AOJ awards her. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that a separate notice of disagreement must be filed to initiate appellate review of "downstream" elements such as the disability rating or effective date assigned).
.F.R. § 4.130. This means the level of compensation she receives is based on her symptoms-not the diagnosed disability. So, the compensation she receives will be the same whether she is service connected for PTSD, or any other psychiatric disorder (in this case, unspecified trauma and stressor disorder). She must submit another Notice of Disagreement if she wants the Board to address any disagreement with the compensation the AOJ awards her. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F. 3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (holding that a separate notice of disagreement must be filed to initiate appellate review of "downstream" elements such as the disability rating or effective date assigned). 

 

 

DAVID L. WIGHT

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Dean, Michael S.

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.