ptsd 7-13 -2010 Ptsd Change Posted Via Carlie

[Buck52]

Thought Id post this for the veterans that can't find the new PTSD Regs these changes were posted by elder hadit member carlie back in Nov 13th 2011.

If anyone knows of any ''New PTSD Regulations'' please post them.

Thanks,

.................Buck

[Navy04]

Thanks for the info

[Berta]

Here it is:



How it works:

This veteran did not fall under the 2010 regulations and he claimed he was an infantryman in South Korea.

It is a denial but does explain the criteria for what VA needs.


"Effective July 13, 2010, 38 C.F.R § 3.304(f) was amended to reduce the evidentiary burden of establishing a stressor when it is related to a fear of hostile military or terrorist activity. See 75 Fed. Reg. 39843 (July 13, 2010), codified at 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3). Under the amended regulation, service connection for PTSD may be granted if the evidence demonstrates (1) a current diagnosis of PTSD (rendered by an examiner specified by the regulation); (2) an in-service stressor consistent with the places, types, and circumstances of service (satisfactorily established by lay testimony) that has been medically related to the Veteran's fear of hostile military or terrorist activity by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or one contracted with by VA; and (3) evidence that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms have been medically related to the in-service stressor by a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or one contracted with by VA. 75 Fed. Reg. 39843, 39852 (July 13, 2010). Because the Veteran has not asserted that his stressors involved fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, the amended regulation is not applicable in this case.

If the Veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, or the Veteran did engage in combat but the alleged in-service stressor is not combat related, the Veteran's lay testimony, by itself, is not sufficient to establish the occurrence of the alleged in-service stressor. Instead, the record must contain credible supporting evidence which corroborates the Veteran's testimony or statements. Moreau v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 389, 395 (1996). Moreover, a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD does not suffice to verify the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressors. See Moreau, 9 Vet. App. at 395-396; see also Cohen, 10 Vet. App. at 142.

The Veteran served as an infantryman and served in South Korea for approximately one year. His DD 214 does not show receipt of awards or decorations indicative of combat. There is no evidence of record that the Veteran engaged in combat with an enemy during his time in the military, nor has he so asserted. Therefore, his lay testimony alone is not sufficient to verify his stressors. Instead, the record must contain service records or other corroborative evidence that substantiates or verifies his testimony or statements as to the occurrence of these claimed events. See West (Carlton) v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 70, 76 (1994); Zarycki v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 91, 98 (1993).

In this case, the Veteran's reported stressors are the only events or injuries in service to which he attributes his psychiatric disorders. For the reasons discussed below, his stressors could not be verified. Therefore, even though Drs. G. K. and B. K., his VA mental health care providers, and D. P., his pastoral counselor, attribute his PTSD to his reported stressors, service connection for PTSD cannot be granted because the stressors cannot be verified with credible supporting evidence."

http://www.va.gov/vetapp15/Files2/1518673.txt