Citation Nr: 0708521 Decision Date: 03/22/07 Archive Date: 04/09/07 DOCKET NO. 04-28 040 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in San Juan, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Seales, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1951 to March 1962 and from March 1962 to July 1971. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a February 2004 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, Puerto Rico. FINDING OF FACT The veteran does not have PTSD that was caused or aggravated by any incident of military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW PTSD was not incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2006). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The veteran asserts he has PTSD that was caused by his active military service. Having carefully considered the claim in light of the record and the applicable law, the Board is of the opinion that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and the appeal will be denied. Service connection for PTSD requires medical evidence diagnosing the condition as per 38 C.F.R. § 4.125, a link (established by medical evidence) between current symptoms and an in-service stressor, and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor(s) occurred. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f). The claim is denied on the specific basis that the preponderance of the competent medical evidence does not show the veteran to have PTSD - the first necessary element in a successful claim of service connection. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992). The veteran argues that he has been treated for PTSD, and has submitted VA psychiatric treatment records reflecting such treatment. See, e.g., June 2002 and June 2004 VA treatment records. Pursuant to the statutory duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim, the veteran underwent a VA PTSD examination in November 2003. Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512 (2004). He did not describe any service-related stressors. He did report that he has dreams in which he sees himself in the army. He stated that he becomes tense and irritable when hearing noises and while driving. On observation, the examiner noted that the veteran was alert and oriented. His mood was anxious and his affect constricted. His attention, concentration, and memory were fair. No hallucinations, suicidal or homicidal ideations were noted. After review of his claims file, the examiner concluded that the veteran did not meet the diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. In November 2004 the veteran underwent another VA PTSD examination. He reported experiencing trauma as a result of his camp coming under mortar fire. He stated that a sergeant was wounded during the attack, although he did not specify the name of the soldier injured or an approximate date of the attack. The veteran also reported that his unit came under fire and a sergeant was killed by friendly fire. The veteran stated he was not present during this incident and was informed later of the sergeant's death. On examination, the veteran did not appear to be anxious, distressed, or depressed when describing his experiences in Vietnam. The examiner noted that the veteran's mood was anxious, however, there was no evidence of psychomotor retardation or agitation, tics, or tremors. The veteran did not report delusions, phobias, panic attacks, or suicidal ideas. After interviewing the veteran and reviewing the claims folder, the examiner concluded that the veteran does not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD. It is the Board's fundamental responsibility to evaluate the probative value of all medical and lay evidence. See Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429 (1995); Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36 (1994); see also Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-471 (1993) (Observing that the evaluation of medical evidence involves inquiry into, inter alia, the medical expert's personal examination of the patient, the physician's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusion that the physician reaches). While June 2002 through June 2004 VA treatment records reflect treatment for PTSD, such records were not generated with a view towards ascertaining whether the veteran had the disorder in question, but only treating symptoms. When medical inquiry was undertaken with the specific purpose of ascertaining such a diagnosis, resulting competent medical opinion evidence is against the claim. Absent competent evidence of a diagnosis of the claimed disability, a basis upon which to grant service connection for it has not been presented. Accordingly, the appeal is denied. Duty to Notify and Assist Regarding VA's duty to inform the veteran of the evidence needed to substantiate his claim, the RO notified him of the information and evidence needed to establish entitlement to service-connection in correspondence dated September 2003 by informing him of the evidence he was required to submit, including any evidence in his possession, and the evidence that the RO would obtain on his behalf. The September 2003 notice also informed the veteran of the necessity of providing detailed stressor information to substantiate his claim. Because service connection has been denied, any question as to the appropriate disability rating or effective date is moot, and there can be no failure-to-notify prejudice to the veteran. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Regarding the duty to assist the veteran in obtaining evidence in support of his claim, the RO obtained his service and VA medical records, and provided the veteran VA PTSD examinations in November 2003 and November 2004. The veteran has not indicated the existence of any other evidence that is relevant to this appeal. The Board concludes that all relevant data has been obtained for determining the merits of this claim and that no reasonable possibility exists that any further assistance would aid him in substantiating this claim. ORDER Service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. ____________________________________________ Vito A. Clementi Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs