POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from September 1999 to August 2003, appeals the denial of service connection for PTSD due to Military Sexual Trauma (MST). The Board recharacterized the claim to specifically address PTSD due to MST. To establish service connection for PTSD, the claimant must have a medical diagnosis, a link between current symptoms and an in-service stressor, and credible supporting evidence that the stressor occurred. The Veteran has a PTSD diagnosis, supported by a VA examination and treating physician notes, which indicate symptoms stemming from military service. The Board found credible supporting evidence for the in-service assaults, citing the Veteran's testimony, military personnel records placing her at Fort Hood, and STR markers including a UTI and STD testing. The Board assigned less weight to a VA examination that attributed PTSD to childhood trauma, as the Veteran credibly refuted this during a Board hearing. Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board granted service connection for PTSD due to MST.

Rationale

Medical evidence confirms PTSD diagnosis.; Credible supporting evidence of in-service MST.; Resolving doubt in Veteran's favor.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040939
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 210713-171923
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) due to military sexual trauma (MST) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran has PTSD medically attributable to in-service MST.  The occurrence of MST is supported by markers in the service treatment records (STRs).

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD due to MST are 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 served on active duty from September 1999 to August 2003.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2021 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  

Following the March 2021 rating decision, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement) and selected the Hearing docket.  The Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in January 2025.  A transcript of the hearing is of record.  Based on selection of the Hearing docket, the Board may consider evidence of record as of March 15, 2021-the date of the rating decision on appeal, and evidence submitted at or within 90 days of the January 27, 2025 Board hearing.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302.  

Service Connection for PTSD due to MST

Initially, the Veteran submitted a claim for anxiety, depression, acute panic disorder and PTSD.  See December 202 VA Form 20-0995 Supplemental Claim Application.  As discussed herein, the Veteran has a PTSD diagnosis, and the record reflects that the diagnosis includes symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety and panic attacks.  See February 2021 VA Examination for PTSD.  The Board has recharacterized the claims as one for service connection for PTSD due to MST to more accurately reflect the record.  See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 5 (2009).  

Generally, to establish service connection, a showing of competent medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence must confirm a current disability; an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a causal relationship between the current disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir 2004).  Service connection may also be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

Service connection for PTSD requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f); Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 139 (1997).  In determining whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD, the Board acknowledges that mental health professionals are experts, are presumed to know the DSM requirements applicable to their practice, and to have taken the DSM requirements into account in rendering a PTSD diagnosis. As such, a PTSD diagnosis provided by a mental-health professional must be presumed to have been made in accordance with the applicable DSM criteria as to both the adequacy of the symptomatology and the sufficiency of the stressor, unless there is evidence to the contrary. See Cohen, 10 Vet. App. at 140.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5), if a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the veteran's service records may corroborate the veteran's account of the stressor incident. 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. Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one
 symptomatology and the sufficiency of the stressor, unless there is evidence to the contrary. See Cohen, 10 Vet. App. at 140.

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5), if a PTSD claim is based on in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the veteran's service records may corroborate the veteran's account of the stressor incident. 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. 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.

As a finder of fact, the Board may consider internal inconsistency of lay statements, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the Veteran when considering whether lay evidence is satisfactory.  See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23, 38 (2007); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995), aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996).

Here, the Veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD that has been medically attributed to MST.  See April 2023 Correspondence from Veteran's treating VA physician (noting diagnosis of chronic PTSD secondary to MST); see also July 2013 Private Treatment Records; February 2021 VA examination (noting a PTSD diagnosis).  Furthermore, after reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that there is credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service assaults occurred.  The Veteran testified that she was assaulted twice after she arrived at her first assignment at Fort Hood.  Military personnel records confirm that the Veteran was assigned to Fort Hood in April 2000.  STRs include a May 2000 documentation of a urinary tract infection, an August 2000 pregnancy test and testing for sexually transmitted diseases in June 2000 and December 2000.  These markers are noted in the February 2021 Personal Trauma Incident/Marker Worksheet prepared by VA.  

The Veteran submitted a letter from her treating VA physician noting that she has been under care since 2014 with a long history of depressed and anxious mood dating to her time in the military.  As noted, the treating VA physician documented a diagnosis of PTSD secondary to MST.  Private treatment records from 2013 and 2014 document the Veteran's longstanding history of depression, anxiety and panic attacks stemming from her time in the military.  The record thus reflects that the Veteran consistently, credibly and competently reported in-service trauma to her VA and private treatment providers.  See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 638 F.3d 1379, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (holding that post service medical records can be used to establish the occurrence of a stressor). 

The Board acknowledges that the February 2021 VA examiner also diagnosed PTSD, but attributed it to childhood sexual trauma.  However, the Veteran testified at the January 2025 Board hearing that this was incorrect, and while her father was abusive to her mother and sister, she was not sexually abused by him.  See January 2025 Board hearing, at p. 2-3.  Likewise, in September 2013 correspondence from the Veteran's mother, she described the Veteran as witnessing abuse from her father.  The Board thus assigns less probative weight to the February 2021 VA examination.  

Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, as is required by law, the Board finds that the Veteran has PTSD as a result of MST, and the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is granted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).  

 

S.C. KREMBS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Snyder, 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.


 to service connection for PTSD is granted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).  

 

S.C. KREMBS

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Snyder, 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.