BVA Case 18-2844: Ptsd

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board erred when it determined that his statements describing the alleged MST were not credible and accordingly declined to afford him a VA examination.

He also generally contends that the Board's decision shows bias and prejudice against him,that the Board denied him the right to eyewitness testimony and should have attempted to find the soldiers he served with to verify his changes in behavior during service,and that the Board's decision violates prior Court orders.

The Secretary argues that the Board did not err in its credibility determination and fully supported its finding based on its review of the entire record.

The Secretary also contends that the appellant's arguments that the Board overlooked PTSD diagnoses and failed to afford him a VA examination do not demonstrate error because the Board denied his claim based on the lack of an in-service stressor and,thus,the issue of a current diagnosis is moot and an examination was not required.

Finally,the Secretary contends that,to the extent that the appellant asserts that the Board failed to comply with prior joint motions for remand (JMRs),he has not sufficiently articulated those arguments,and that the appellant's broad allegations of Board prejudice and bias are merely disagreement with the Board's findings.

He also contends that his psychological and behavioral changes during the last eight months of service are consistent with MST,and that his diagnoses of depression,bipolar disorder,and PTSD support his credibility as to the occurrence of MST.

He also argues that the Board erred by relying on a letter from his former attorney who exaggerated his symptoms,defamed his character,and cast doubt on his credibility.

He reiterates that the Board failed to follow prior JMRs and failed to provide him with information about others who may be able to corroborate his accounts or contact them for additional information.