BVA9502910 DOCKET NO. 93-11 277 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Newark, New Jersey THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tresa Schlecht, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant had active service from March 1970 to March 1972 and from December 1973 to September 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Newark, New Jersey, which denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant contends that he has PTSD as a result of stressors experienced during service, including witnessing the deaths of friends and a traumatic injury to his left great toe. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against entitlement to service connection for PTSD. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the claimant's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy. 3. The veteran experienced the stressful environment common to all who served in Vietnam. Claimed stressors of a nature so as to result in delayed post-traumatic stress disorder, psychologically distressing events outside the range of usual human experience, cannot be verified. CONCLUSION OF LAW Post-traumatic stress disorder was not incurred in or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a); 3.304(d) (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The appellant's claim that he suffers from PTSD as a result of his experiences while serving in Vietnam is plausible and is well-grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a), which mandates a duty to assist the veteran in developing all relevant evidence. The evidence of record includes service medical records, numerous postservice medical records, and the appellant's testimony during a hearing held in September 1992. There is no indication that there are additional relevant records, since the appellant has not provided specific information upon which to request stressor verification. The Board is satisfied that all available, relevant evidence has been obtained and that there is no further duty to assist the veteran. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110. Regulations provide that service connection may be granted for a disease diagnosed after service discharge when all the evidence establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Evidence in support of a claim is evaluated in light of the places, types, and circumstances of service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.306(b)(2). Satisfactory lay or other evidence that an injury or disease was incurred or aggravated in combat will be accepted as sufficient proof of service connection if the evidence is consistent with the circumstances, conditions or hardships of such service, even though there is no official record of such incurrence or aggravation. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d). The medical evidence of record includes no evidence that the appellant was treated in service for any complaints or symptoms specific to PTSD during or following his service in Vietnam. The service medical records show that the appellant had concerns about his home situation for which he sought assistance in December 1970 and January 1971, and was diagnosed as having situational depression but no other signs, symptoms or complaints except as related to acute physical illness or injury are noted. He did not report any symptoms related to his service duties or an incident occurring in service. In February 1972, while sawing with a circular saw, he lacerated his left big toe; the tip was removed and the toe was debrided and sutured. Service connection may be granted if the evidence shows that there is a nexus between his current condition and his military service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Godfrey v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 352, 356 (1992). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis thereof, credible supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed inservice stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1994). Where PTSD is claimed as a result of combat stressors, there must be a specific finding of fact of whether the veteran was engaged in combat and, if so, whether the claimed stressors are related to combat. Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91, 98 (1993). The appellant claims that he suffers from PTSD as a result of stressors experienced during service in Vietnam. He testified during his hearing that, while on board his ship, he witnessed friends serving on small river patrol ships "get blown up." He also testified that his foot injury, which resulted in amputation of the distal phalanx of the left great toe, was very stressful, and that, during treatment of that injury, the medical area where he was being treated came under mortar fire. He testified that these experiences cause him to have flashbacks, nightmares, anger, and depression. He testified that these symptoms and feelings cause him to drink, to use drugs, and to withdraw from other people. In this case, the appellant did not claim that he experienced the claimed stressors during combat. He did not indicate that the ship he served on engaged in combat with the enemy, and although his testimony did imply that he was sometimes assigned to boat patrol on smaller boats, he also testified that he had not been under attack while on boat patrol. The appellant specifically testified that the ship he was on was not under attack at the time he witnessed his friends die. The evidence of record establishes that the appellant's military occupational specialty was that of marine mechanic and fireman. Information provided by the National Personnel Records Center shows that the appellant did not receive the Purple Heart or other award indicating combat exposure. The evidence of record also establishes that the amputation of the appellant's toe was a non-combat injury. Even though the occurrence resulted amputation of a portion of his left great toe, this injury does not constitute a stressor that is outside the range of normal human experience, since accidental injury of this type may occur under normal circumstances of civilian life, nor was the injury life-threatening or particularly severe. The appellant testified that the medical treatment area he was taken to came under mortar fire, but this experience, if verified, would not show that the appellant "engaged in combat with the enemy" within the definition of section 3.304(f), as the appellant clearly testified that he was under treatment for his toe injury and was not performing or expected to perform military duties. Thus, none of the stressors which the appellant claims he experienced and which he believed caused him to develop PTSD were experienced while the appellant was in combat. Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91, 98 (1993). Because the stressors claimed by the appellant were not experienced while he engaged in combat, his lay evidence alone is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of the claimed events. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) (West 1991), 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(d) (1993), VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1, Part VI, 7.46(e)-(f) (Dec. 21, 1992). Here, no evidence has been submitted or located which verifies the claimed stressors except for the injury to his left big toe, nor has the appellant provided sufficient description of the other claimed stressors to serve as a basis on which VA could seek records to verify the stressors. The record establishes that VA made a request to the appellant for information that could be used to obtain verification of stressors prior to his hearing. The appellant was asked specific questions during his hearing to elicit information which could be used to verify stressors. At that time, the appellant testified that he could not remember the names of the friends whose deaths he witnessed, even though he testified that he was very "close" to them, nor was he able to provide other specific information about the circumstances of those deaths. Review of the medical evidence or record reveals no specific descriptions of the stressors on which the appellant's diagnosis of PTSD was based. Without verification, VA is not obliged to accept the appellant's uncorroborated account of his Vietnam experiences. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 192 (1991). The duty to assist is not a one-way street. The appellant here may not wait for stressor verification when he should have the information essential for obtaining such verification. Id. at 193. Moreover, the veteran's testimony as to witnessing the deaths of his friends lacks credibility. The appellant testified that he was very "close" to the individuals whose deaths he witnessed, and that he had gone to boot camp with some, and had known others prior to service. However, the appellant was unable to recall the names of the friends who died, nor did he offer any other significant information about the events, such as date or location, other than the general name of the river where his ship operated. Further, the appellant testified that he had flashbacks, nightmares, and many other symptoms related to PTSD. However, the medical evidence of record does not contain any reference to these symptoms prior to 1991, even though the medical evidence includes numerous hospitalizations and outpatient visits related to treatment of the appellant's service-connected left toe condition and treatment of the appellant's long-standing nonservice-connected drug and alcohol use. The medical evidence of record which reflects that the appellant was treated for PTSD does not link that disorder to his experiences in the military. Thus, the record contains neither factual evidence, such as verification of stressors, nor medical evidence linking appellant's current mental condition with a disease or injury in service. The Board notes the appellant's request for an examination for his PTSD. However, a psychiatric examination could not provide verification of a stressor as is necessary in this case, and he has otherwise been given ample opportunity to provide the information necessary for such verification. The preponderance of the evidence is against an award of service connection for PTSD. Therefore, the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 regarding reasonable doubt are not applicable in this case. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is denied. HOLLY E. MOEHLMANN Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.