Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069920 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 251106-605148 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER Service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT At no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current disability of PTSD, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of a disability prior to the Veteran's filing of a claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from February 2017 to March 2022. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in April 2025 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). In November 2025, the Veteran timely appealed such rating decision by filing a Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and requested direct review of the evidence considered by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, she may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. Entitlement to service connection for PTSD. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also 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). Direct service connection may not be granted without evidence of a current disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. Id.; see also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995) aff'd, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996). Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a); a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) require that a diagnosis of a mental disorder conform to the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, Fifth Edition (DSM-5). See also Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393 (2020). If a PTSD claim is based on personal assault in service, evidence from sources other than the veteran's records may corroborate the veteran's account of the stressor incident. Examples of such evidence include, but are not limited to records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f)(5). Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources. Examples of behavior changes that may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include, but are not limited to: a request for a transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes. Id. In addition, VA may submit any evidence that it receives to an appropriate medical or mental health professional for an opinion as to whether it indicates that a personal assault occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5). It is important to note that, for personal assault PTSD claims, an after-the-fact medical opinion may serve as the credible supporting evidence of the reported stressor. See Menegassi v. Shinseki, 683 F.3d 1379, 1382-83 (Fed. Cir. 2011); Bradford v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 200, 207 (2006); Patton v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 280 (1999). An award of service connection requires a finding of a current disability that is related to an injury or disease in service. Watson v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 309 (1993); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992). Under applicable regulation, the term "disability" means impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries and their residual conditions. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Hunt v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 292, 296 (1991); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). However, as noted previously, VA requires a diagnosis that conforms to the DSM-5 to compensate for a psychiatric disability, therefore constraining the application of Saunders in the context of claims for service connection for psychiatric disabilities. Martinez-Bodon, supra. In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. However, in Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the Court held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency. While the Veteran is already in receipt of service connection for unspecified anxiety disorder with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which is rated in connection with her service-connected multiple sclerosis, she contends that service connection for PTSD is warranted. In this regard, she alleges that she developed such disorder as a result of an in-service personal assault. Specifically, she reports that, while serving as an administrative clerk at a recruiting station, she was subject to sexual harassment perpetrated by a sergeant major, which included unsolicited gifts, compliments, and inappropriate comments regarding fraternizing outside of work and taking care of her when they were alone in a car. The Veteran indicates that, as a result of such event, she had behavioral changes, including increased visits to a medical or counseling clinic or dispensary, even without a specific diagnosis or specific ailment. She also had a breakup of a primary relationship, withdrawal from friends, episodes of depression, panic attacks, anxiety without an identifiable cause, obsessive behaviors, a tendency to stay at home, a feeling of not wanting to go out, agoraphobia, increased fear of surroundings, an inability to go to certain areas, and changes in performance and performance evaluations. She stated that she would drive home taking different routes, always checking to see who was behind her and, when in the car with male coworkers, she would try not to sit to close in case of physical touch. In an October 2024 statement, a fellow servicemember, K.G., stated that she became aware of a complaint the Veteran made against a Master Gunnery Sergeant (E-9) in her unit who was sexually harassing her. K.G. was part of an administrative team that assisted in getting the paperwork and correspondence to a legal officer who oversaw the incident. The sergeant in question was found guilty and forced to retire for the harassment. However, while the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) reflect a report of depression or excessive worry, for which she received counseling, as she had been diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, in connection with her February 2022 separation examination, her clinical psychiatric evaluation was normal and such records fail to reflect a diagnosis of PTSD. Additionally, in December 2023, the Veteran's private physician, Dr. C.R. noted that her multiple medical conditions included anxiety; however, no diagnosis of PTSD was noted. Furthermore, while her post-service VA treatment records reflect a positive PTSD screening in April 2024, such screenings were otherwise negative and no diagnosis pursuant to the DSM-5 was rendered. Furthermore, at an August 2021 VA mental disorders examination, the Veteran reported the aforementioned harassment events; however, the examiner, a psychologist, found that she only had a diagnosis of adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, which was related to her recent diagnosis multiple sclerosis. Similarly, at an April 2025 VA PTSD examination, while the Veteran again reported the aforementioned in-service stressor, the examiner found that her symptoms did not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD under the DSM-5 criteria; rather, she was again diagnosed with unspecified anxiety disorder and adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood. In this regard, the examiner found that the Veteran's reported military sexual trauma met Criterion A for a diagnosis of PTSD; however, due to the lack of trauma-related symptoms involving intrusions, avoidance, or negative cognition/mood, she did not meet the full criteria for such a diagnosis under the DSM-5. The Board affords great probative weight to the August 2021 and April 2025 VA examiners' determinations as they are both psychologists with the requisite education, training, and experience in assessing psychiatric disorders, and their conclusions considered all pertinent evidence of record, to include the Veteran's statements and her relevant medical history. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). The Board has also considered the Veteran's assertions that she has PTSD as a result of her military service, to include her argument that her psychiatric symptoms were present prior to her diagnosis of multiple sclerosis. However, as a lay person, she does not have the requisite training and experience necessary to address the diagnosis or etiology of such claimed disorder. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 491 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). In this regard, the diagnosis and etiology of an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, involves a medical subject concerning an internal psychological process extending beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship and, thus, may not be competently addressed by lay statements. Specifically, such matters require the applicability of DSM-5, as well as knowledge of the impact traumatic experiences have on the human psyche. Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456 (2007) (explaining that while the claimant is competent in certain situations to provide a diagnosis of a simple condition such as a broken leg or varicose veins, the claimant is not competent to provide evidence as to more complex medical questions). Accordingly, the Veteran's opinion as to the presence of a diagnosis of PTSD is not competent evidence and, consequently, is afforded no probative weight. Therefore, based on the foregoing, the Board finds that at no time during the pendency of the claim does the Veteran have a current disability of PTSD, and the record does not contain a recent diagnosis of a disability prior to the Veteran's filing of a claim. Consequently, service connection for PTSD is not warranted. See Brammer, supra. In this regard, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's arguments regarding the occurrence of her reported in-service stressor; however, the basis of the denial is the lack of a current diagnosis of PTSD, which the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.125(a) require conform to the DSM-5, and not the sufficiency of the stressor. See also Martinez-Bodon, supra. The Board also notes that the Veteran has alleged that her psychiatric symptoms, to include those associated with her service-connected unspecified anxiety disorder with adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood, are separate from her service-connected multiple sclerosis; however, the issue regarding the propriety of such rating is not before the Board. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the weight of the probative evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, such doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal and her claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Leung, Dawn The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.