BVA9502612 DOCKET NO. 92-09 054 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Portland, Oregon THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: AMVETS ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Michael Martin, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from June 1967 to June 1969. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision of April 1991 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Portland, Oregon, Regional Office (RO). The Board notes that the veteran's representative has presented comments with regard to claims for service connection for hearing loss, tinnitus, and dysthymia with secondary alcohol abuse. However, those claims have not been certified for appellate review. Accordingly, the Board refers the comments to the RO for any appropriate action. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that the RO made a mistake by denying his claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. He asserts that he developed post-traumatic stress disorder as a result of involvement in combat in Vietnam. He reportedly was a cannoneer during service and won an award for valor in combat. 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 claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim has been obtained. 2. The veteran does not have post-traumatic stress disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW Post-traumatic stress disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Board has found that the veteran's claim is "well-grounded" within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). That is, his claim is not inherently implausible. All evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claim has been obtained. The Board is also satisfied that all relevant facts have been properly developed. Therefore, no further assistance to the veteran is required. In general, service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131 (West 1991). Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder requires medical evidence establishing a clear diagnosis of the disorder, credible evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred, and a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1993). The veteran's service personnel records show that his military occupational specialty was field artillery crewman. His awards and decorations included the Army Commendation Medal with "V" Device. The medal was given for heroism in connection with military operations against a hostile force in the Republic of Vietnam. In view of this award, there is no further need for verification of stressors. The key issue in this case is whether the veteran has a clear diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder which is linked to the already established stressors in Vietnam. In support of his claim, the veteran has submitted written statements dated in November 1993 from his brother, sister, and mother. The statements are to the effect that the veteran's personality was different after service than it had been before service. After service, he reportedly was unable to hold a job, and could not make commitments to anyone or anything. The Board finds that these statements are not sufficient to establish that the veteran has post-traumatic stress disorder. Neither the veteran, nor the persons submitting written statements have the qualifications to render a medical diagnosis or a medical opinion such as whether or not the veteran has post-traumatic stress disorder. Such an opinion may only be offered by qualified medical personnel. Therefore, the statements are not competent evidence with regard to the issue of whether the veteran has post-traumatic stress disorder. See Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492, 494 (1992). The veteran has apparently never sought psychiatric treatment, so there are no medical treatment records showing that he has post- traumatic stress disorder. The only medical evidence is the reports of examinations conducted by the VA and by fee basis examiners in connection with the veteran's claim for compensation benefits. A report of a social and industrial survey conducted by a VA social worker in February 1991 shows that after interviewing the veteran, the social worker stated that The veteran has a history of symptoms that resemble that of a mental illness. There may, perhaps, be evidence of chronic depression as well as post-traumatic stress disorder overlapping to some degree. Based on the vague self-reports of [the veteran's] complaints a provisional diagnosis of PTSD is provided here until a further more extensive evaluation is made by a psychiatrist. Significantly, however, the subsequent examination by a psychiatrist did not result in a final diagnosis of post- traumatic stress disorder. A report of a psychiatric evaluation conducted for the VA in March 1991 by S. Michael Sasser, M.D., a psychiatrist, noted that , "He does not present with the anxiety disorder, increased arousability, startle response, and other manifestations of a chronic anxiety state that one would expect in Post-Traumatic Stress disorder." The psychiatric diagnoses following the examination were (1) Depression-NOS, (2) Alcohol dependence, and (3) History of substance abuse. A second series of examinations resulted in similar diagnoses. A report of a social and industrial survey conducted by a VA social worker in January 1993 shows that the social worker rendered a "provisional diagnosis" of alcohol abuse and post-traumatic stress disorder. However, subsequent psychiatric examination did not result in a diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. The report of a psychiatric examination conducted by a VA psychiatrist in January 1993 shows that the examiner concluded that "...the veteran's symptomatology does not meet sufficient numbers of criteria for the diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder at the present time." The examiner noted that although the veteran had adequate stressors of combat variety, he had denied having nightmares, stated that he did not dream about Vietnam, and did not have recurring stressor-event dreams. The veteran also denied having flashbacks of any sort. The examiner also noted that the veteran socialized frequently and substantially. No hypervigilance was noted during the interview, nor was there any unusual startle reaction. The veteran also denied having "anniversary reactions". The examiner stated that, "During the course of the extensive interview it was felt that his behavior was most characteristic of continued mild dysthymic phenomena rather than anxiety." In the present case, there is a conflict in the evidence. The social workers have rendered opinions which support the veteran's claim for post-traumatic stress disorder, while the psychiatrists have found that the veteran does not have post-traumatic stress disorder. The Board is not required to accept every opinion by a VA physician, a private physician, or a social worker. Instead, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh evidence and assess the credibility to be given to each piece of evidence. See Hayes v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 60, 69 (1993). The Board finds that the opinions by the psychiatrists have higher probative value than the opinions by the social workers. In this regard, the Board notes that . diagnoses rendered by the social workers were both specified as being "provisional diagnoses". It is clear that the diagnoses by the psychiatrists were intended to be the final diagnoses. The Board also notes that the psychiatrists possess medical degrees while the social workers do not. Therefore, the medical diagnoses rendered by the psychiatrists are considered to have higher probative value. For the foregoing reasons, the Board finds that the veteran does not have post-traumatic stress disorder. Accordingly, the Board concludes that post-traumatic stress disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service. ORDER Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is denied. WARREN W. RICE, JR. 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.