Terry L. Farmer v. ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
TERRY L. FARMER,
Claimant-Appellant,
v.
ERIC K. SHINSEKI, Secretary of Veterans Affairs,
Respondent-Appellee.
______________________
2012-7119
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 10-2483, Judge Mary J. Schoelen.
______________________
Decided: June 17, 2013
______________________
K ENNETH M. CARPENTER , Carpenter, Chartered, of
Topeka, Kansas, argued for claimant-appellant.
MICHAEL P. G OODMAN, Trial Attorney, Commercial
Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Depart-
ment of Justice, of Washington, DC, argued for respond-
ent-appellee. With him on the brief were S TUART F.
D ELERY , Acting Assistant Attorney General, J EANNE E.
D AVIDSON, Director, and MARTIN F. HOCKEY , J R., Assis-
tant Director. Of counsel on the brief were MICHAEL J.

-- 1 of 3 --

TERRY FARMER v. SHINSEKI 2
T IMINSKI, Deputy Assistant General Counsel, and T RACEY
P ARKER WARREN, Attorney, United States Department of
Veterans Affairs, of Washington, DC.
______________________
Before D YK, MAYER , and O’MALLEY , Circuit Judges.
P ER CURIAM .
Terry L. Farmer appeals a final judgment of the Unit-
ed States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veter-
ans Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’
Appeals (“board”) that denied his claim for disability
compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”)
and a seizure disorder. See Farmer v. Shinseki, No. 10-
2483, 2012 U.S. App. Vet. Claims LEXIS 212 (Feb. 13,
2012). Before the board, Farmer alleged that he incurred
both the PTSD and the seizure disorder when he was
kicked in the head by his drill instructor during basic
training at Camp Pendleton in San Diego, California. The
board determined, however, that there was “no credible
supporting evidence that the claimed [in-service] trauma,
a head injury, occurred.”
On appeal, Farmer argues that the Veterans Court
erred by not remanding his appeal to the board with
instructions to apply 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3)* to his claim.
* 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f)(3) provides:
If a stressor claimed by a veteran is related to
the veteran’s fear of hostile military or terrorist
activity and a VA psychiatrist or psychologist, or a
psychiatrist or psychologist with whom VA has
contracted, confirms that the claimed stressor is
adequate to support a diagnosis of posttraumatic
stress disorder and that the veteran’s symptoms
are related to the claimed stressor, in the absence
of clear and convincing evidence to the contrary,
and provided the claimed stressor is consistent

-- 2 of 3 --

TERRY FARMER v. SHINSEKI 3
Farmer asserts that he is entitled to rely on section
3.304(f)(3)’s relaxed evidentiary standard because his
alleged PTSD stressor was “related to [his] fear of hostile
military or terrorist activity.” As we recently held in Hall
v. Shinseki, however, section 3.304(f)(3) applies “only if a
veteran’s claimed in-service PTSD stressor relates to an
event or circumstance that a veteran experienced, wit-
nessed, or was confronted with and that was perpetrated
by a member of an enemy military or by a terrorist.” No.
2012-7115, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 11497, at *7 (Fed. Cir.
June 7, 2013) (footnote omitted). Because the alleged
assault by Farmer’s drill instructor was not “perpetrated
by a member of an enemy military or by a terrorist,” id.,
the board was not required to apply section 3.304(f)(3) in
determining whether or not Farmer’s PTSD was incurred
in service. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the
United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
AFFIRMED
with the places, types, and circumstances of the
veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay testimony
alone may establish the occurrence of the claimed
in-service stressor. For purposes of this para-
graph, “fear of hostile military or terrorist activi-
ty” means that a veteran experienced, witnessed,
or was confronted with an event or circumstance
that involved actual or threatened death or seri-
ous injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of
the veteran or others, such as from an actual or
potential improvised explosive device; vehicle-
imbedded explosive device; incoming artillery,
rocket, or mortar fire; grenade; small arms fire,
including suspected sniper fire; or attack upon
friendly military aircraft, and the veteran’s re-
sponse to the event or circumstance involved a
psychological or psycho-physiological state of fear,
helplessness, or horror.

-- 3 of 3 --