BVA9502474 DOCKET NO. 92-11 637 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Cleveland, Ohio THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Patrick J. Costello, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active military service from June 1961 to May 1964, and from September 1965 to September 1971. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (hereinafter the Board) on appeal from a July 1991 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), in Cleveland, Ohio, which denied the veteran's claim for PTSD. Upon receiving the claims folder at the Board, it was decided that further development was needed prior to the issuing of the appellate decision. Therefore, in June 1993, the Board remanded the case for the purpose of obtaining additional information concerning the veteran's claimed stressors. The requested development has now been accomplished, and this claim is now ready for appellate consideration. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran claims that he has PTSD as a direct result of his service in Vietnam. He states that while he was stationed in Vietnam he witnessed distressing events related to war, and that he has been distressed by these incidents since then. He maintains that the psychological problems he suffers from now are related to his service, and that he should receive just compensation from the VA for his eleven years of military service. 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 the veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for PTSD. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the agency of original jurisdiction. 2. An acquired psychiatric disorder was not manifested during service. 3. The record does not show that the veteran engaged in actual combat with the enemy, and adequate stressors have not been corroborated; the veteran does not have PTSD related to his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION In accordance with 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991), and Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78 (1990), the appellant has presented a well-grounded claim. The facts relevant to this appeal have been properly developed and the obligation of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to assist the veteran in the development of her claim has been satisfied. Id. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110, 1131 (West 1991), compensation will be provided if it is shown that the veteran suffers from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. In addition, service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994). In order to establish service connection for PTSD, the evidence must show that the disorder exists, and that it is directly related to sufficiently stressful experiences encountered while in service. The psychiatric nomenclature employed in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities is based upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Third Edition (DSM-III-R), American Psychiatric Association. It must be established that a true mental disability exists. If it exists, it should be diagnosed in accordance with this manual. Essentially, the manual specifies that in order for an individual to be suffering from PTSD, the following must be identified: (1) A psychologically stressful event that is outside the range of usual human experience, such as combat, which would be markedly distressing to almost anyone. (2) The characteristic symptoms involving reexperiencing of the event, avoidance of associated stimuli or numbing of responsiveness, and increased arousal. The evidence does not indicate that the veteran was engaged in combat with the enemy; his military occupational speciality was that of a message center specialist. His service records fail to show that he was awarded any personal or unit decorations or distinctions that would denote participation in combat. The only alleged stressor event to which he refers with any particular specificity was being subject to racial bigotry while in-country. Statement from the veteran, June 26, 1991. The veteran indicates that he was in areas where there was mortar fire. However, it is a particularly distressing event, rather than the mere presence in a "combat zone" which may constitute a valid stressor for purposes of supporting a diagnosis of PTSD. See Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 91, 99 (1993). The veteran has alleged that he was involved in incidents in service that he cites as stressors resulting in his alleged PTSD. Written statement provided by the veteran, June 26, 1991; RO Hearing Transcript, November 19, 1991. Yet, none of these incidents have been verified, and the veteran has remained vague with regard to such pertinent facts as names, dates, and locations. For example, at his personal hearing, he referred to an incident in which he was relaying a message and the vehicle he was in came under mortar fire. RO Hearing Transcript, Page 5, November 19, 1991. However, the veteran cannot remember if anyone was with him at the time, the date it happened, whether anyone was killed during the mortar attack, or the physical location of the mortar fire. He also stated that he "felt" the mortar projectile "when it went past" him. The Board recognizes that it has a duty to assist the veteran in obtaining additional information that may benefit or support his claim. See Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190 (1991). On remand, we attempted to obtain additional information from the veteran concerning his claimed stressors. Letter to the veteran, November 22, 1993. However, the veteran never responded to the letter of inquiry. Additionally, although we possessed only the limited information provided by the veteran, we sought assistance from the Environmental Support Group. Yet, because of the veteran's inability or unwillingness to provide more specific details about his combat stressors, we were unable to obtain any additional information in support of his claim. Letter from the Environmental Support Group, March 25, 1994. We find that the veteran has remained passively disinterested in providing assistance and has not provided information that is essential in obtaining the verifying evidence he alludes to. See also Gobber v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 470 (1992); Olson v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 480 (1992). With regard to diagnoses of PTSD, it is apparent that these were made following a recitation by the veteran of his alleged combat "stressors", which, as we have discussed, have not been verified. VA Form 10-9034, Medical Record Report (Compensation and Pension Examination), January 6, 1992; Letter from Dr. L. A. Graham, April 18, 1991. Yet, in Dr. Graham's analysis of the veteran's psychological condition, he notes that the veteran's stressors include incidents from his previous employment, his landlord, and other people with whom he has had contact. Moreover, in the January 1992 VA psychiatric evaluation, we note that even after being provided with an unsubstantiated military history by the veteran, the VA examiner did not indicate that the veteran's mental problems could be identified as solely PTSD, and solely based on the veteran's experiences while in Southeast Asia. Rather, the report indicates an impression that the veteran suffers from PTSD, depression, and other specific anxieties. It is uncertain to what extent the impression that the veteran "meets the criteria" for PTSD is based on the veteran's own recitation of his alleged service history. Where, however, the VA determines that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or that the veteran did engage in combat with the enemy but the claimed stessor 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. Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 106 (1993). We note that prior to the veteran's filing a claim for VA benefits for PTSD, the he had not referred to any service experiences. In determining whether service connection is warranted, the Board must determine whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event. If however the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49 (1990). In this case, the criteria to support a diagnosis of PTSD, including a verifiable service stressor, have not been met. While we note that there were previous diagnoses of PTSD, upon further questioning, the veteran has been unable, or unwilling, to provide sufficiently detailed information relating to his examples of stressors to allow for corroboration. We find therefore that there is not sufficient evidence to raise a reasonable doubt as to whether the veteran suffers from PTSD. On the basis of these findings and following a full review of the record, the Board opines that service connection for PTSD is not warranted, and denies the veteran's claim. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for PTSD is denied. BETTINA S. CALLAWAY 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.