BVA9507749 DOCKET NO. 93-15 528 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Military Order of the Purple Heart ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. M. Barnard, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from April 1941 to July 1970. This appeal arises from a January 1990 rating decision of the Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD. This decision was confirmed and continued by a rating action issued in February 1993. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that he currently suffers from PTSD as a direct result of his service. He asserts that he experiences intrusive thoughts, nightmares, flashbacks, anger, irritability and an exaggerated startle response. Therefore, he believes that service connection should be granted for PTSD. 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 files. 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 entitlement to service connection for PTSD. FINDING OF FACT The veteran's subsequently diagnosed PTSD is not shown to have its origins in his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(a) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). That is, we find that he has presented a claim which is plausible. We are also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. The record is devoid of any indication that there are other records available which should be obtained. Therefore, no further development is required in order to comply with the duty to assist mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). Under the applicable criteria, service connection may be granted for a disability the result of disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1131 (West 1991). In order to establish entitlement to service connection for PTSD, there must be medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of the condition, 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). The veteran's July 1946 to July 1949 DD-214 indicates that he was not involved in any campaigns or combat and had received no injuries. He had also received no awards or decorations. Subsequent DD-214's indicated that he had been awarded the Korea Service Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, and the Republic of Vietnam Commendation. He never received any combat badges. His primary military occupations were vehicle mechanic, supply sergeant and motor sergeant. His personnel records indicated that he was in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive in a support capacity. A review of the veteran's service medical records is essentially negative. His entrance examination revealed that he was psychiatrically normal, as did subsequent examinations. There was a notation in May 1956 that he was experiencing palpitations and felt nervous. He was apparently home to attend his brother's funeral. The diagnosis was of anxiety due to his brother's death. The retirement examination performed in February 1970 revealed that he was psychiatrically normal. He offered no complaints of a psychiatric nature. In July 1989, the veteran submitted a statement concerning alleged service incidents that caused him to be nervous. He stated that he had been sent to Vietnam in November 1967. He assignment was to conduct the movement of the motor pool from Saigon to Long Binh. He asserted that, two days after moving the motor pool, the area where it had been in Saigon was destroyed in the Tet offensive. He did not indicate that he was present. He then noted that the base in Long Binh came under rocket attack, although he indicated that he and his men were on the perimeter. He also recounted an incident when he helped some others to retrieve a serviceman who had gone to the local village. When they entered a hut to get him, they were confronted by several Viet Cong. However, the Viet Cong let them leave. He stated that this incident was very frightening. He also complained about the terrible weather, and noted that he felt very lonely due to the separation from his family. This statement also noted that, after service, he had a lot of family stresses, partly due to a night-time security job he had. He then became employed by the Park Service, a position he held until his retirement in 1984, at the age of 65. He also noted that he often had dreams about a variety of things although he referred to no specific war-related content. The veteran was then examined by VA in January 1990. He stated that his symptoms had begun after his service in Vietnam. These included a sense of feeling miserable, being belligerent, and distrustful. He felt irritable and angry with people. He described poor sleep, ruminative thoughts of Vietnam, and flashbacks. He also noted having lost all interest in sex. The diagnosis was mild to moderate PTSD. The veteran was also treated at VA between May and October 1992 with relaxation techniques. He noted feeling tense, which the examiner felt was related to relationship strains and a feeling of not having enough to do. He described anger, mistrust, irritability, difficulty with intimacy, moodiness, intrusive thoughts of Vietnam, and nightmares about the wars. He also referred to an exaggerated startle response. His affect was appropriate and his speech was goal-directed and coherent. The diagnosis was PTSD. After a careful review of the record, it is the finding of the undersigned that the record does not support entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The evidence of record indicates that the veteran was apparently not engaged in combat; rather, his principle occupation was mechanic, supply sergeant and motor sergeant. There is no indication that he ever received any wounds or injuries during his period of service. According to Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91, 98 (1993), when it has been determined that a veteran was not engaged in combat, "...the veteran's lay testimony, by itself, will not be enough to establish the occurrence of the alleged stressor. (cite omitted). Instead, the record must contain service records which corroborate the veteran's testimony as to the occurrence of the claimed stressor." See also Swann v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 229 (1993), Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190 (1991). It is noted that the record does not contain any corroboration that the veteran was faced with a life-threatening circumstance or other stressor which could be reasonably expected to cause post- traumatic symptoms in almost all individuals. While the veteran stated that he had been confronted by Viet Cong soldiers while retrieving another serviceman from a nearby village, there is no confirmation that this event ever occurred. There is no documentation in his service records that this incident took place. Furthermore, while his personnel records confirm that he was in Vietnam during the Tet Offensive, there is no suggestion that his involvement was anything other than supportive in nature. There is absolutely no indication that he was exposed to combat. It is also noted that the veteran has not provided any reasonably strong leads for VA to develop to assist him in establishing that he experienced a life-threatening stressor in service. While he contended that he was stationed at Long Binh when it was under rocket attack, he provided no information to suggest that he was in such close proximity that his life could have threatened. While the record contains diagnoses of PTSD based upon the history that the veteran gave to the examiners, it is concluded that the record does not contain documentation of a corroborated stressor to support these diagnoses. Therefore, it is concluded that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. ORDER Service connection for PTSD is denied. C. P. RUSSELL 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.