ÿþCitation Nr: 18101404

Decision Date: 05/04/18	Archive Date: 05/04/18



DOCKET NO. 14-28 324A

DATE:	May 4, 2018

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

The competent evidence of record demonstrates the Veteran s anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, is related to his active service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1961 to November 1965.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans  Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision.  In March 2018, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a Travel Board hearing.  A transcript of that hearing is of record.

1. Entitlement to service connection for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified.

The Veteran contends that his anxiety disorder began during active service and his currently diagnosed anxiety disorder is related to his active service.  Specifically, the Veteran provides that his currently diagnosed anxiety disorder is linked to witnessing damaged aircraft and fellow service members not returning to the base he was stationed at in Thailand following missions and his involvement in disaster management briefings.

The Board concludes that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of anxiety disorder that is related to his active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a).

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110.  Establishing service connection generally requires competent medical or lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability.  See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

First, a December 2012 VA Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) Examination shows the Veteran has a current diagnosis of anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified.  Additionally, the Veteran submitted progress report from a private psychologist in March 2013, who diagnosed the Veteran with generalized anxiety disorder.  The VA examination report notes that the Veteran experienced damaged aircraft and fellow service members not returning to the base he was stationed at in Thailand following missions.  The private psychologist noted the Veteran serviced aircraft of fellow service members that did not return from missions and engaged in disaster management briefings.

Second, although the Veteran s service treatment records (STRs) are silent regarding complaints of or treatment for anxiety, the Veteran asserted in statements and testimony put forth in the years following his discharge that he experienced anxiety  when seeing the planes we worked on, with the holes shot through the wings&    See December 2010 Private Psychological Evaluation.  Importantly, the Veteran is competent to report the onset of such symptoms during his active service.  See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005) (holding that a Veteran is competent to report what occurred during service because he is competent to testify as to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007) (holding that lay testimony is competent to establish the presence of observable symptomatology); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009).  The Board notes that the Veteran s military occupational specialty is listed as airplane electrician.  See Veteran s Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty (DD Form 214).  Thus, the events described above are consistent with the Veteran s circumstances, conditions, or hardships of his service.

The Board additionally finds his competent statements concerning the in-service events that cause his anxiety to be credible, as his account of the circumstances surrounding these events and their effect on him, has remained essentially consistent during the pendency of this claim.  See Jefferson v. Principi, 271 F.3d 1072 (Fed. Cir. 2001); see also December 2010 Private Psychological Evaluation; March 2011 Statement in Support of Claim for Service Connection for PTSD; December 2012 VA PTSD Examination; March 2013 Private Progress Note.

Lastly, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran s current anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, is at least as likely as not related to the in-service stressors concerning damaged aircraft and fellow service members not returning to the base he was stationed at in Thailand following missions.  The private psychologist concluded that the Veteran s generalized anxiety disorder is due to his active service.

A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102 (providing, in pertinent part, that reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the claimant).  When the evidence supports the claim, or is in relative equipoise, the claim will be granted.  See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990); see also Wise v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 517, 532 (2014).  If the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim, it must be denied.  See id.; Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996).

Considering the medical evidence linking the Veteran s anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified, to his active service, and no medical evidence to the contrary, the preponderance of the evidence is in favor of the Veteran s claim for service connection for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified.  Consequently, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and service connection for anxiety disorder, not otherwise specified is granted. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55.

 

P.M. DILORENZO

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans  Appeals

ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	S. Mussey, Associate Counsel 




{'dataset': 'bva_opinions'}