POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The Veteran served from June 1966 to February 1970, including service in Vietnam. The Veteran appeals the denial of service connection for PTSD and alcohol use disorder. The Board reviewed the case based on evidence submitted prior to the withdrawal of a hearing request. The Board found that the Veteran's PTSD is related to fear of hostile military activity in Vietnam, and his alcohol use disorder is secondary to his PTSD. The Board assigned more probative weight to a December 2025 private psychologist's diagnosis of PTSD and alcohol use disorder, finding the Veteran's lay statements regarding his in-service stressors credible and adequate to establish the occurrence of the stressor. The private psychologist opined that the PTSD was at least as likely as not related to Vietnam service, and the alcohol use disorder was related to PTSD due to the Veteran's use of alcohol to manage symptoms during service. The Board found the private opinion adequate for appellate review and assigned it significant probative weight. The Board concluded that service connection for PTSD and alcohol use disorder is warranted. Service connection for PTSD and alcohol use disorder is granted.

Rationale

Private psychologist opined PTSD related to Vietnam service.; Veteran's lay statements regarding in-service stressors found credible.; Stressor related to fear of hostile military activity.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040896
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250902-569881
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

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

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's PTSD is related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity in Vietnam. His alcohol use disorder is due to his PTSD.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD with alcohol use disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b) (2024); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2025).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from June 1966 to February 1970.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2025 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On December 18, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision. 

In the June 2025 rating decision, the AOJ found that new and relevant evidence had been received to readjudicate the claim of service connection for PTSD. This is a favorable finding by the AOJ, and the Board will proceed to address the claim on the merits. See 38?U.S.C. § 5104A; 38?C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Entitlement to service connection for PTSD.

Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires evidence showing: (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a nexus between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated in service. See Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition; a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). If the claimed stressor is not combat related, a veteran's lay testimony regarding in-service stressors is insufficient to establish the occurrence of the stressor and must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 142 (1997). 

If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed
 3.304(f). If the claimed stressor is not combat related, a veteran's lay testimony regarding in-service stressors is insufficient to establish the occurrence of the stressor and must be corroborated by credible supporting evidence. Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 142 (1997). 

If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to the veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is adequate to support a diagnosis of PTSD and that the veteran's symptoms are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary, and provided the claimed stressor is consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of the veteran's service, the veteran's lay testimony alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor. "Fear of hostile military or terrorist activity'' means that a veteran experienced, witnessed, or was confronted with an event or circumstance that involved actual or threatened death or serious injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of the veteran or others, such as from an actual or potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery, rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire, including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon friendly military aircraft, and the veteran's response to the event or circumstance involved a psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear, helplessness, or horror. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3).

Establishing secondary service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability (for which secondary service connection is sought); (2) a service-connected disability; and (3) that the current disability was either caused or aggravated by the service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a); see also Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

July 2017 and June 2025 VA examiners opined that the Veteran did not currently have a psychological disorder and instead had either alcohol use disorder or cocaine disorder in remission. However, in December 2025, the Veteran reported current symptoms including intrusive memories, nightmares, anger, and hypervigilance, and a private psychologist diagnosed PTSD and alcohol use disorder. See private examination. After considering the Veteran's reported symptoms, the Board assigns more probative weight to the diagnoses by the private psychologist and finds that the Veteran has PTSD with alcohol use disorder, including alcohol use disorder in remission.

The Veteran's service in Vietnam is conceded. See June 2025 rating decision. He has consistently reported that his base was hit with mortar and rocket fire while in Vietnam and that he knew someone who was killed in rocket fire. See, e.g., June 2025 VA examination. Both the July 2017 and June 2025 VA examiners found that the Veteran's reported stressor was related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. As a result, the Board finds that the Veteran's competent and credible lay statements regarding his experience in service are adequate to establish the occurrence of his claimed in-service stressor.

The December 2025 private psychologist opined it was at least as likely as not that the Veteran's PTSD is related to his time in Vietnam and that his alcohol use disorder was related to his PTSD because the Veteran began abusing alcohol during service to manage his fear and symptoms.

The Board finds the December 2025 private medical opinion to be adequate for appellate review. The examiner relied on examination of the Veteran and a review of the file, and she provided a rationale that included discussion lay statements of reported history. As a result, the opinion is assigned significant probative weight.

The probative evidence of record reflects that the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD with alcohol use disorder and that his stressors in Vietnam are related to fear of hostile military and terrorist activity. Moreover, the evidence reflects that his PTSD is related to his service in Vietnam and his alcohol use disorder is related to his PTSD. Thus, service connection is warranted.

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Sandler, Counsel
 opinion to be adequate for appellate review. The examiner relied on examination of the Veteran and a review of the file, and she provided a rationale that included discussion lay statements of reported history. As a result, the opinion is assigned significant probative weight.

The probative evidence of record reflects that the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD with alcohol use disorder and that his stressors in Vietnam are related to fear of hostile military and terrorist activity. Moreover, the evidence reflects that his PTSD is related to his service in Vietnam and his alcohol use disorder is related to his PTSD. Thus, service connection is warranted.

 

E. I. VELEZ

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Sandler, 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.