BVA Case 09-4670: Ptsd

Ventura ,appeals through counsel a November 5,2009,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision that found new and material evidence had been received to reopen a claim for entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD),but denied the claim on the merits.

The Board determined that new and material evidence had been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD,but denied the claim on the merits.

The Board concluded that [t]he [v]eteran did not serve in combat and the record does not include credible evidence corroborating the occurrence of the [v]eteran's claimed in-service stressors including a personal assault.

The appellant argues that VA did not fulfill its duty to assist because,notwithstanding his statements that he engaged in combat with the enemy and the presence of a diagnosis of PTSD based,in part,on his reported combat experiences,VA failed to conduct a search for unit histories or morning reports,which could corroborate his assertion that he engaged in combat.

The appellant also argues that the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding that he did not engage in combat and impermissibly ignored favorable evidence demonstrating that his PTSD diagnosis had been attributed to combat.

ANALYSIS To establish service connection for PTSD,a claimant must present (1)evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD;(2)evidence of an in-service stressor,with credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3)evidence of a causal nexus between the current symptomatology and the in-service stressor.

The Board's findings concerning combat status and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence are findings of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.