The veteran sought service connection for PTSD based on an alleged in-service sexual assault. The Board denied the claim after concluding that the record lacked credible supporting evidence establishing that the assault occurred. The Veterans Court affirmed, relying in part on an interpretation that a medical opinion diagnosing PTSD based on a reported assault could not itself serve as corroborating evidence of the stressor.

The Federal Circuit reversed that interpretation. The court examined 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5), which governs PTSD claims based on personal assault. That regulation specifically recognizes that evidence from sources other than service records may corroborate the stressor and allows VA to submit evidence to a medical professional for interpretation regarding whether behavioral changes indicate that an assault occurred.

The Federal Circuit held that nothing in the regulation prohibits a medical opinion from serving as credible supporting evidence that the assault occurred. The court explained that medical professionals may evaluate behavioral changes, symptom patterns, and other evidence to determine whether the claimed assault is consistent with the veteran’s presentation. Accordingly, the Veterans Court erred in adopting a categorical rule excluding such opinions from consideration as corroborating evidence.

The case was remanded for further adjudication under the proper legal standard.

• In MST and personal-assault PTSD claims, corroboration of the stressor may come from sources other than official service records.
• A medical opinion may constitute credible supporting evidence that a personal assault occurred under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).
• VA may not categorically reject medical opinions as corroborating evidence in MST claims.
• Behavioral changes and indirect evidence may support verification of an MST stressor.

Menegassi is one of the most important MST cases because it confirms that medical professionals may help corroborate the occurrence of an in-service assault through retrospective evaluation of behavioral markers and symptom patterns.

MST claims frequently lack contemporaneous service-record documentation. Menegassi recognizes the realities of personal assault cases and prevents VA from imposing unrealistic evidentiary standards requiring formal in-service reporting or direct documentary proof.

• Rejecting MST claims solely because service records lack assault documentation.
• Refusing to consider medical opinions as corroborating evidence.
• Improperly requiring independent verification beyond behavioral markers.
• Misinterpreting 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).
• Discounting lay and behavioral evidence associated with MST trauma.

A veteran files a PTSD claim based on an unreported in-service sexual assault. A psychologist reviews the veteran’s post-service behavior, treatment history, and documented behavioral changes and concludes they are consistent with MST trauma. Under Menegassi, that opinion may itself serve as credible supporting evidence of the assault.

Use Menegassi when:
• VA denies MST claims due to lack of formal in-service reporting.
• The Board rejects retrospective psychiatric opinions corroborating assault.
• Challenging improper interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5).
• Establishing that behavioral markers and medical interpretation may corroborate stressors.

38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(5), Patton v. West, AZ v. Shinseki