BVA Case 11-2546: Ptsd

Because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases,the Board's decision will be vacated and the matter remanded for further adjudication.

The Board found that a January 2006 Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA) notice letter did not advise the appellant that evidence of behavior changes may constitute credible supporting evidence of the sexual assault ;therefore,it ordered the RO to inform and ask the appellant to provide or identify any evidence from sources other than his service records that might corroborate his claimed stressor.

The Board found that the October 2009 letter provided the appellant with notice of the evidence needed to substantiate his claim as required by 38 C.

Additionally,the Board found that an examination was not warranted based on its findings that the appellant's reports 5 of the in-service assault were not credible so there was no evidence of a nexus between the appellant's PTSD diagnosis and service.

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 stessor, with credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred; and (3)evidence of causal nexus between the current symptomatology and the in-service stressor.

The Board's findings concerning combat status and the sufficiency of corroborating 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.

304(f)(5) The appellant argues that the Board erred by not remanding his case for failure to provide the notice required by 38 C.