BVA9507334 DOCKET NO. 92-10 450 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Muskogee, Oklahoma THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Oklahoma Department of Veterans Affairs WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant; S.J.; L. G. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Julia M. Kurtz, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from February 1968 to October 1969. This appeal arises from an August 1990 rating decision of the Muskogee, Oklahoma, Regional Office (RO) which denied entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. The veteran testified before a hearing officer at the RO in February 1992. This case was previously before the Board in November 1992 when it was remanded for further development. The case is now ready for further appellate review. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran asserts on appeal that the RO erred in denying service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. He asserts that he has been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder. He contends that he was around large guns on the U.S.S. Tripoli. 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(s). 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 the veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy and his accounts of alleged stressful events inservice are not corroborated by the record. 3. The clinical criteria to support a diagnosis of post- traumatic stress disorder have not been met. CONCLUSION OF LAW Post-traumatic stress disorder was not incurred or aggravated by the veteran's active duty service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Initially, it is necessary to determine if the veteran has submitted a well-grounded claim within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991), and if so, whether the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) has properly assisted him in the development of his claim. A "well-grounded" claim is one which is not implausible. A review of the record indicates that the veteran's claim is plausible and that all relevant facts have been properly developed. The veteran advances that he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of experiences during Vietnam. Under the applicable criteria, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (1994). Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder requires medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of the condition, credible supporting evidence that the claimed stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed inservice stressor. If the claimed stressor is related to combat, service department evidence that the veteran engaged in combat or that the veteran was awarded the Purple Heart, Combat Infantryman Badge, or other similar combat citation will be accepted, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, as conclusive evidence of the claimed inservice stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1994). In West v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 70 (1994), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) recently set forth a framework for analysis of claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. This involves an initial determination of whether the veteran was engaged in combat and whether any of the alleged stressors occurred during combat. If the veteran was engaged in combat and the claimed stressors are related to combat, the veteran's lay testimony regarding claimed stressors must be accepted as conclusive as to their actual occurrence. Where the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy or the claimed stressor is not related to such combat, the veteran's lay testimony by itself, will not be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. It must then be determined whether the testimony as to the claimed stressor is corroborated sufficiently be service records to establish the occurrence of the claimed stressful events. Finally, it must be determined whether the claimed events are sufficient stressors to support a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is not warranted unless it is related to the veteran's military service by a showing that the veteran experienced an inservice recognizable stressor "that is outside the range of usual human experience and that would be markedly distressing to almost anyone, such as experiencing an immediate threat to one's life or witnessing another person being seriously injured or killed." Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91 (1993). This is a factual determination and the Board is not bound to accept the uncorroborated account of the veteran on this point. Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 229 (1993); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 614 (1992); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190 (1991); reconsidered, 1 Vet.App. 406 (1991). The veteran's service medical records make no reference to either a psychiatric disorder or any symptoms typically associated therewith. The veteran's service personnel records show that he was a clerk in service and was stationed aboard the U.S.S. Tripoli. The veteran received the National Defense Service Medal, Republic of Vietnam Service Medal, and Vietnam Campaign Medal. A VA psychiatric examination was conducted in June 1990. The examiner indicated that he was unable to obtain a history from the veteran and unable to make a diagnosis. In August 1990, the veteran was seen at the VA Mental Health Clinic with complaints of hearing voices, insomnia, fear of crowds, nervousness, and being unable to get along with people. The diagnosis was anxiety with major depression and post- traumatic stress disorder features versus schizophrenia. Medical records from the Red Rock Mental Health Center dating from March 1982 to January 1992 indicate the veteran was initially diagnosed with schizophrenia. In January 1992, the diagnosis was changed to post-traumatic stress disorder. The psychiatrist noted the veteran's symptoms of anxiety, paranoia, obsessive thoughts of Vietnam, flashbacks, recurrent dreams, hallucinations and delusions, insomnia, hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, poor concentration, irritability, angry outbursts, flat affect, depressed mood, and feeling of hopeless apathy. She noted that his symptoms of paranoia, hallucinations, and delusions all developed after his traumatic experiences during combat in Vietnam. The veteran and his sisters testified before a hearing officer at the RO in February 1992. He testified that: he served aboard the U.S.S. Tripoli; while on guard duty one night, a Marine hit him with the butt of his gun in the stomach and another tried to pick him up and throw him over the fantail; he didn't report the incident but went on sick call for three days afterward as a result of being hit with the butt of the rifle; he discussed another incident involving a "big white guy" and a grenade which the guy wanted to blow up; he and friends were involved in an altercation with some Filipinos and a friend was stabbed; when dead bodies of Marines were being returned to the ship, he saw dead bodies of people he knew which scared him; he has flashbacks of the incident when he was hit and almost thrown off the fantail; once when he was in the shower, two sailors attempted to rape him; he didn't report the incident because he feared for his life; and he can't work now. His sisters testified that he is bothered by noise, has crying spells, and came back from Vietnam very disoriented. In January 1993, the veteran was hospitalized at a VA medical facility for a period of observation and evaluation. He gave a history of three situations where his life was threatened; the first, when two Marines tried to kick him out of the ship; the second, when a sailor companion got knifed; and the third, when someone tried to rape him. He stated that he has constant memories of the incidents, and more recently, flashbacks. He also complained of nightmares, depression, and indicated that he was involved with the bringing and destroying of bags brought by helicopters containing cadavers from dead soldiers in Vietnam. The examiner indicated that the veteran was in contact with reality but had morbid preoccupation about the experiences aboard the U.S.S. Tripoli. During his hospitalization, the veteran had several episodes of nightmares which were initially reports of the events in the Philippines. The examiner noted that the veteran was not involved in direct combat and that he never had any experience that was stressful enough to make him fearful that he might lose his life. The diagnoses included non-combat- related post-traumatic stress disorder, mild to moderate, chronic; schizophrenia, paranoid-type, chronic; and borderline intelligence. The Board finds that the evidence does not show on its face that the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy. The administrative records provided by the service department do not show that the veteran was entitled to receive the Purple Heart Medal, the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Combat Action Ribbon, or other awards or decorations denoting participation in combat with the enemy. Moreover, during the January 1993 period of hospitalization, the veteran indicated that he did not engage in direct combat while in Vietnam, although he has furnished conflicting information in this regard. His military occupational specialty (Clerk) would also not denote combat exposure. The veteran's claimed stressors consist of being hit with the butt of a rifle in the stomach and being threatened of being thrown overboard the U.S.S. Tripoli, seeing a friend get stabbed in an altercation at a bar in the Philippines, being threatened with rape in a shower, and seeing the body bags of cadavers from Vietnam. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the service medical and or personnel records do not demonstrate that the veteran experienced an inservice stressor which would satisfy the threshold criteria for a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The veteran's records do not reflect any exposure to combat circumstances, or corroborate that he was otherwise sufficiently traumatized from a psychic standpoint. The veteran has not offered any corroborating evidence to substantiate his claim nor do the service records relate any such incidents. The veteran is also not found to be a credible historian, given the varying accounts he has reported concerning the alleged stressors and the difficulty the examiners have experienced in eliciting a history from him. In this regard, his accounts have ranged from not being able to remember details of the experiences, to more vivid recounting of the incidents as set forth during the VA hospitalization. It is not apparent that several of the reported experiences would, even if true, constitute a valid stressor as they would not be sufficiently outside the range of human experience such as to be markedly distressing to almost anyone. We note that the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder rendered by a VA examiner in January 1993 was based on uncorroborated background information pertaining to the threshold requirement of a "stressor." The VA examiner is noted to have diagnosed non-combat-related post-traumatic stress disorder. The veteran's alleged stressors have not been corroborated and accordingly, the veteran's history does not reflect an authentically developed background history and experience that would satisfy the criteria requisite to support a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. As the examiner's diagnosis was based on uncorroborated stressor information, and as the veteran did not have combat, the diagnosis does not serve to put the evidence in equipoise. West v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 70 (1994). In summary, as noted above, the veteran's service records do not reflect an appropriate stressor evocative of the development of the disability in controversy. Additionally, the Board does not find the veteran to be a credible historian. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for post- traumatic stress disorder is denied. ORDER Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is denied. JEFF MARTIN 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.