Thi s version includ es the e rrat a of 30May02-e
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 00-2083
R O G ER D. P EN T EC O ST , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Ma

y 24, 2002 )

J am es W . S te war t (non-attorney

prac titioner) , and Barton F. Stichman , both of Washington, D.C., we re on the ple a din g s f

or the a pp e lla nt.
J o h n H. Thompson , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , As si st ant Gen era l Co un se l; Darryl A. Joe , Acting Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Er ic a M . D or nb ur g , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea dings f

or the a ppellee.
Be fore FARL EY, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. I VERS, Judge : The vete ran, Rog er D . Pentecost, appe als from a July 26, 2000, Boa

rd of Veter ans' Appeal s (B VA or Boar d) dec ision that determined that post-tra umatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not incur

red in, a g g ravated by , or otherw ise the re sult of active- duty service . Record (R.) at 3. The veter an has submitted a motion for r ever sal, and the Secr etar y has submitted a motion for remand pursuant to the Veterans Claims Assistance A ct of 2000 (V CAA), Pub. L . No. 106-475, 11 4 St a t. 2 09 6 (No v. 9, 20 00 ). Th e Cou rt no te s th a t th e ve te ra

n h a s n ot p re sent ed any

argume nts befor e this Court reg ardingthe following three alleg ed in-ser v i ce s t re s sors, which the B oard considere d in its decision: The veter an (1) rea d in Stars and Stri pes that his "buddy ," Robe rt Rusher,

was killed in action in January 1968; (2) obser

ved the body

of an unide ntified Marine mutilated by

a m i n e o r o t h er

ex p l o s i v e a t

a D a N an g h o s p i t al ; an d

(3 ) o b s er v edan i n fa n tfr o m a n ea rb y v i l l age2

whose he ad had be en che wed on by a rat. The Court deems any argument perta ining to those thre e stressors aba

ndoned and w ill not address them furthe r. Se e Bu c k lin ge r v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 435, 436 (1993). The ve tera

n reque sts that the Court rever se the B oard de cision and orde r the Sec reta ry to a wa rd se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or PTSD . M oti on

(M ot. ) at 10 . T he Se c re tary re qu e sts that th e c a se be re manded f

or re ajudication in light of the ena ctment of the V CAA and pursuant to Holliday v. Principi , 1 4 V e t.A

pp . 2 80 (2 00 1) , a

nd do e s n ot a dd

re ss t he ve te ra n' s argume nts on

the me ri ts. The Court will de ny the Secre tary ' s motion and addre ss the veter an' s reque st for re versa l, a re medy g reater than tha

t proposed by

the Secr etar

y . Cf

. M a h l v

. P r in c ipi , 15 Ve t.A pp . 3 7 ( 20 01 ); Be

st v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 18 (2001). This appea l is ti mely , and the Court has jurisdiction pursua nt to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266( a). F or the rea sons disc ussed below, the Court will reverse the J uly 26, 2000, Boa

rd dec ision and remand the matter for the B oard to a

war d service connec tion.

I. F AC TS The ve tera

n serve d in the U.S. Ma

rine Corps from June 15, 1966 to J une 4, 1968. R. at 45. He wa s stationed in Vietnam and se rved a s a wa rehouse man and messman at the U.S. air base at Da Na n g fr o m Fe b ru ary 4 , 1 9 6 7 t o M ay 2 1 , 1 9 6 8

. R

. at 3 6 9

. W h i l e s t at i o n edat Da Na n g, t h e v et er an 's unit ex perie nced e nemy

rocke t attacks. R. at 454-55. On Marc h 3, 1993, the veter an fil ed a cla im for servic e conne ction for, inter alia, PTSD. R. at 47 . In Apr il 1 99 3, a ft e r a VAe xami natio n, the ve te ra n w a s d ia g no se d w ithdy sth y mia , a nxie ty disorder, a

nd somatiz ation disorder. R. at 175. I n an Oc t o b er 1 0, 1993, decision, a V A re g ional office (RO) denied, inter alia, service connec tion for PTS D. R. at 190-91. The RO f ound, "Ser

vice

connec tion is denie d for [P TSD], bec ause a chronic nervous c ondition is not shown in service , and [P TSD] was not diagnose d on last examination." R. at 191. I n May 1994, the veter an appe aled the RO denial of se rvice connec tion for PTSD to the Board. R. at 206-10. The ve tera n had a he aring befor e the B oard in August 1996. R. at 212-57. I n Marc h 1997, the B oard r emande d his claim for PTSD to t

he RO fo r t

he RO to o bta in m e dic a l r e c or ds of the Ap ri l 19 93 PTSD e va luatio n w ith direc tions for the RO to rea djudicate the PTSD claim. R. at 288. I n J anuar y 1998, the RO dec lined to reope n the veteran' s claim because new and materia l evidenc e had not been submitted. R. at 293. On seve ral subseque nt occa sions the RO declined to re open his PTSD c laim also on the basis that3

no new a nd materia l evidence had bee n submitt ed. R. at 292, 315, 326. I n Jan ua ry 19 99 , th e B oa

rd re mand e d th e ve te ra

n' s c la im f

or se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or PTSD to t he RO fo r f

ur the r d e ve lopmen t. R. a t 35 3. I n Apr il 1 99 9, the ve te ra n c omp le te d a

PTSD

scre ening questionnaire. R. at 404-07. I n J uly 1999, the RO sent a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps r equesting information to confirm the ve tera n' s alleg ed stressor s. R. at 4 01. The Commandant' s office informed VA that the i nformation the vetera n provided wa s "insuff

icient for the purpose of

conductingany

meaning ful rese arc h on the veter an' s behalf." R. at 420. The vete ran submitt ed to the RO var ious medical rec ords dated betwee n Marc h and Aug ust 1999. R. at 410-18, 424-30. Acc ording to an August 1999 VA compensation and pension ex amination repor t by a VA ph y sic ian, the ve te ra

n w a s d ia g no se d wi th chro ni c P TSD . R. a t 43 4. I n Jan ua ry 20 00 , th e RO denied the ve tera

n' s claim for PTSD be cause the evidenc e re viewed did " not establish that a stressful experience occur

red." R. at 469. On J uly

26, 2000, the B oard de nied servic e conne ction for PTSD. R. at 10 . T he B oa

rd fo un d th at th e str e sso rs that th e ve te ra n c la ime d to have be e n e xpos e d to in Vietnam had not be en ver ified. Id.

II. AN AL YSI S Se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or PTSD re qu ir e s t

h e p r e s e n c e of

thr e e e le me nts : ( 1) A c ur

re nt d ia g no sis of PTSD; (2) cr edible supporting e vidence that the claimed in- service stressor a ctually occur red; a nd (3) medic al evidenc e of a causa l nexus betwee n the cur rent sy mptomatology

and the c laimed in- se rv ic e str e sso r. 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 04 (f ) ( 20 01 ); se e Coh e n v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 128, 138 ( 1997). Whe re a c u r

r e n t d i a g n o s i s o f P T S D e xi s t s , t h e s u f f i c i e n c y o f t h e c l a i m e d i n - s e r v i c e s t r e sso r i s presumed. Id

. a t 14 4. Ne ve rt he le ss, c re dib le e vid e nc e that th e c la ime d in -s e rv ic e str e sso r a c tua lly

occur red is also re quired. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f ). The B oard f

ound that "V A examination reports and c linical treatment rec ords contain c urre nt dia g no se s o f P TSD ." R. at 3. I t f ur the r n ote d:
[T] he medica l evidence in the claims folder contains seve ral re fer ence s to stressors to w hic h th e ve te ra

n ha s c la ime d he wa s e xpos e d duri ng his se rv ic e in Sou the a st A sia during the Vietnam Er a. Such evide nce , at least by implication, sugg ests a nexus betwee n t he vete ran' s curr ent disability from PTSD and the c laimed in-ser vice4

stressors.
R. at 3- 4. Th e B oa

rd op ine d th a t " [t]he ve te ra n' s e sse nti a l p rob lem is th at he l a c ks a ve ri fi a ble stressor." R. at 5. I ndeed, in its J anuar y 7, 2000, State ment of the Case , the RO seems to have limit ed its inquiry

to the stressor e lement. R. at 468-69. The Boa rd fur ther e x plained: As indicate d p re viously , the veter an' s difficulty in satisfy ing the require ments for service connec tion f

o r PTSD arises not with reg ard to medic al evidenc e of a clea r, c ur re nt d ia g no sis of PTSD , nor wi th re g ard to m e dic a l e vid e nc e of a lin k b e tw e e n h is curr ent sy

mptomatology

and his claimed in-service stressors–the f irst and third e le me nts re qu ir e d und e r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .3 04 (f ), re sp e c tiv e ly

. Hi s dif

fi c ult y ari se s w ith re g ard to t he se c on d e le me nt, ve ri fic a tio n o f t he a lle g e d s tr e sso rs in V ie tna m to w h i c h h e a t t r i b u t e s h i s c u r r e n tP T S D s ym

p t o m a t o l o g y. R. at 6. As noted above, the Da Nang rocke t attacks are the only in-servic e stressor s alleg ed by the veter an and c onsidered by the B oard be low that the Court will review, be cause the veter an has abandone d the other a lleg ed stressor arguments asserte d befor e the B oard. F or a stre ssor to be

su ff ic ie nt f or PTSD , th e str e sso r m

us t me e t tw o r e qu ir e me nts : (1) A person must have been "e x posed to a traumatic event" in w h i ch "t h e person experience d, witnessed, o r was c onfronted w ith an event or events that involved actua l or a thre atene d death or serious injury , or a thre at to the phy sical integ rity of self or othe rs" and (2) "the person' s response [must have] involved intense fea r, helplessness, or hor

ror." Cohen , 1 0 Ve t

. Ap p
. at 1 4 1 (q u o t i n g D I AGNOS TI C AND S TA T I ST I CA L M A N U A L OF M EN TAL D I SORD ERS 32 (4th ed. 1994))

. The vet er an d o es not assert that his exposure to rocke t attacks is combat r elated. I f the

c la ime d s tr e sso r f

or PTSD is n ot c omb a t r e la te d, its oc c urr ence mus t be c or ro bo ra te d b y c re dib le supporting e vidence

. Id. at 14 2 . This Court has held that " ' [t ]here is nothing in the statute or the

re gu l at i o n s wh i ch p ro v i d es t h at co rr o b o ra t i o nm u s t , an d ca no n l y , b e f

o u n d i nt h e s er v i ce re co rd s
. '" Di zo gli o v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t

. Ap p
. 1 6 3 , 1 6 6 (1 9 9 6 ) ( qu o t i n g Do ra n v . B ro wn , 6 V e t. A p p
. 2 83, 289 (1994)) . Howeve r, whe n a cla im for PTSD is based on a nonc ombat stressor, " the noncombat vet eran 's te st im on y

alo ne i s i ns uff

ici ent pro of o f a s tr ess or. " Mo re au v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 389, 396 (1996). " [C ]redible supporting e viden ce of the a ctual occ urre nce of an in-ser vice stre ssor ca

nnot
con si st so lel y

of af ter -t he-f actmed ica l n ex us evi den ce." Id

.5

The ve tera

n argues that the B oard de cision should be re verse d beca use the B oard' s fac tual deter mination that the independen t ev idence of re cord doe s not corrobor ate the ve tera n' s alleg ed stressor is clea

rly err oneous. Mot. at 1. The ve tera n descr ibed the occ urre nce o f Da Na n g rocke t
a tta c ks a s f

oll ow s: I n Fe bruar

y 1 9 6 7 , t h e first 144mm rocke ts were fired a t Da Na ng Airbase . Other attacks oc curr ed in [1967 and 1968]. I ncoming rounds would whistle then stop and y ou kn e w the y

we re c omi ng do wn bu t not whe re the y wo uld hit . T his is tra umatic in itself. A[n] F- 4 Phantom coming in to land would bac k off their eng ines which for a time sounded like incoming rounds to me

. I awoke many times in tot al fe ar, sat up and wa ited for the explosi ons. These e vents so traumatized me that I have taken me dic a tio ns fo r i ns omn ia and e mot ion a l/m e nta l pr ob le ms f or 32 y e ars
. R. at 366. Records f

or the ve tera

n' s unit contain the following descr iptions o f roc ket attac ks that

o cc u rr edwh i l e t h e v et er an wa s s t at i o n edat Da Na n g:
3 J an 1968. At approximately 0400 hours t he Da Nang Air Base c ame unde r attac k from NVAFor ces. Thr ee ( 3) 530B Fire Trucks a nd o n e (1 ) 5 5 00 g allon Water Ta nk e r w a s d isp atc he d to VM F -1 22 Squ a dr on to f ig ht f ir e in a Ha ng ar w hic h w a s h it by an e ne my

Roc ke t. 30 J an 1968, At approximately 0325 hours, the Da NangAir B ase c ame unde r attac k from NVA For ces. Enemy rocke ts hit POL dump a nd started a lar g e JP -4 fue l blaze, Roc ke ts a lso hit

VM A- AW- 24 2 a

nd VM F -1 22 fl igh t

l i n e s t a rt ingnume ro us fi re s a lso hit was the Air F orce Flar e dump.

R. at 454-55. The unit re cords corr oborate the veter an' s assertion that ene my rocke t attacks oc curr ed during the time period he was stationed at Da Na ng
. The B oard de termined: I t is entirely

possible that the veter an wa s , i n fa ct , ex posed to the stressors he has alleg ed. None theless, the law a nd regulations require independe nt verification of the claimed stre ssors. The ve tera n' s alleg ed stressor s have not be en cor roborated by independe nt evidence , nor has he provided spec ific, detailed infor mation reg arding these e vents that could per mit corroboration of the incidents to which he attributes his PTS D sy

mptomatology . . . . As for the rocke t attacks, ther e is no way , based on the information prov i d ed b y t he vete ran, to c orrobor ate that he was a ny wher e nea

r the targ ets of such attacks, or wa s otherwise thre atene d there by

.6

R. at 9-10. The B oard decision neg lected to cite Su oz zi v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 307 ( 1997), as c ontrolling prec edent. B ased on Su oz zi , we co n cl u d e that the Boar d err oneously insisted that there be

corr oboration of the ve ter an 's p ersonal participation. In Su oz zi , the Court reje cted suc h a nar row definition for c orrobor ation and instructed that "[ t ] he Secr etar y , in insist ing that there be

corr oboration of ev er y detail including the appe llant's pe rsonal par ticipation . . . , defines

' corr oboration' far

too narrow ly

. The ve tera n has off ere d new a

nd independe nt evidence of stressful

even ts andth at e vi den ce i mp li es h is pers on al e x po su re." Id. at 311. The fac ts in this c ase are simil ar to those in Suozzi. The ve tera n in this i nstance has off

ere d independe nt evidence of the occur renc e of a stressful eve nt, and the evide nce implies his persona l exposure. I n Su oz

zi , th e vete ra

n s ub mit te d r a dio log s o f t ra ns c ri pts de sc ri bin g the e ve nts his company endure d, which we re inde pendent de scriptions of s ome of the stre ssors he desc ribed. He

a lso su bmi tte d a c op y of the mor nin g re po rt , r e fe re nc e d in

his state me nt, that te nd e d to su bs tanti a te his acc ount of eve nts. Id. a t 31 0. Simi larl y , th e ve te ra n in thi s c a se su

bmi tte d his un it log and

un it

rec ords, (R. at 369, 454-55) , independe nt descriptions of rocke t attacks his unit ex perie nced w hen he wa s stationed at Da N ang , which would, when viewed in the light most favor able to the ve tera n, objectively

corr oborate his claim of having experience d rocke t attacks

. R

. at 3 6 9 , 4 5 4 -5 5

. Al t h o u gh the unit rec ords do not specific ally state t hat t he veteran was present during the rocket attacks, the fa c t th a t he wa s st a tio ne d w itha un it that w a s p re se nt w hil e su c h atta c ks oc c ur re d w ou ld s tr on g ly sug g est that he was, in f

act, exposed to the attacks. Su oz zi makes clear that corr oboration of every detail is not require d. The Boar d' s finding that "[a]s for the r ocket attacks, there is no way [,] based on the information provided by the veter an, to cor

roborate that he wa s any

wher e nea

r the tar g ets of such attac ks, or was othe rwise thre atene d t h er eb y ", ( R. at 10), appe ars to sug g est that the vete ran should have prove n his phy sical proximi ty to, or firsthand e x perie nce with, the attacks. His pre sence with his unit at the time s uch attacks occ urre d corr oborate s his statement that he experienc ed such attacks pe rsonall y . T h e C ourt notes that 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) only require s, as to stressor
corr oboration, " cre dible supporting e vidence " that the claimed in-se rvice str es s o r occurre d. The

ve te ra n' s unit re c or ds are c le arl y

c re dib le e vid e nc e that th e rocket a tta c ks tha

t th e ve te ra

n a lle g e s, did in fact, oc cur.7

F a c tua l f ind ing s b y

the B oa rd wi ll n ot b e ov e rt

ur ne d b y thi s Co ur t un le ss t he y are " c le a rl y
err oneous." 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4) ; see Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 53 (1990). Under the "c lear ly err oneous” standa

rd, " if there is a ' plausible' basis in the record for t he fa ctual dete rminations of the B VA , e ve n if thi s Court mig ht no t ha ve re a c he d th e same fa c tua l de te rm inatio ns , [th e Court ]

cann ot ov ert urn th em. " Gi lbe rt, 1 Vet.App. at 53. "Re versa l is the appr opriate r emedy when ' [t ]here is absolutely

no plausible basis' for the BV A' s decision and whe re that decision ' is clear ly err oneous in light of the uncontrove rted evi den ce in appel lan t's f avo r.'" Hi c k

s v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 417, 422 (1995) ( citing Hersey

v. De rwinski , 2 Ve t.A

pp . 9 1, 95 (1 99 2) ) ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) . T he Court wi ll

reve rse the Boa

rd' s decision because the Boa rd erred in interpre ting the corrobor ation require ment too narrow ly

in violation of Su oz

zi by requiringthe veter an to cor roborate his actua l prox imity to and participation in the rocket attacks on Da Nang

. Be cause the Boa

rd neg lected to f

ollow Su oz

zi , there is no pl ausible basis, in light of the uncontrove rted e vidence of the ve tera n' s exposure to rocket

a tta c ks that is c on ta ine d in his un it re c or ds , for the B oa rd ' s f a c tua l de te rm inatio n th a t th e ve te ra n d id not corrobor ate his alleg ed in-ser vice stre ssor with independe nt evidence

. As noted above , the B oard ha s conce ded that the vetera n has a c urre nt diag nosis of PTSD, which esta

blishes the first ele m ent for the awa rd of se rvice connec tion for PTSD, and that, if the veter an' s stressors we re ve rified, t h ey wo u l d provide the ne cessa ry nexus between the c urre nt diag nosis of PTSD in 1999 an d t h e v et era n' s alleg ed stressor , which would esta blish the third element for service connec tion. R. at 4. Bec ause the Boa rd er red in findingthat the veter an did not

corr oborate his in-servic e st ressor, the second e lement for se rvice connec tion is now established, and there f o r e a ll thr e e e le me n ts n e c e s s ar y f o r th e aw ar d

o f s e r v ic e c o n n e c ti o nf

o r PT SD h a v e b e en established. On rema

nd the B oard is instructed to g rant the ve tera n' s claim for se rvice connec tion for PTSD and to assig n the appr opriate r ating and ef fec tive date.

III . C ON CL USI ON Af te r c on sid e ratio n o f t

he ve te ra n' s mo tio n, the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n, and the re c or d on a pp e a l, the Court holds that the Boa rd committed err or wa

rra nting r ever sal whe n i t d et ermined that the

v e t e r and i d

n o tc o r r o b o r a t e h i s e x p o s u r e t o r o c k e t a t t a c k s w h i l e s t a t i o n e d a t D a N an g
. A c c o r d i n g l y, the Court will gr ant the vete ran' s motion and the J uly 26, 2000, Boa

rd dec ision is R EVERSED and8

the matter is REMANDED for pr ocee dings c onsistent with thi s opinion.