Acquired psychiatric disorder decisions — 2000

The Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, as the additional medical records did not show a relationship between the veteran's current psychiatric disorder and service.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, and denied entitlement to a pension effective date earlier than June 8, 1988.

The Board denied both the claim of CUE in the 1963 rating decision and the request for an earlier effective date for service connection.

The Board denied service connection for schizophrenia due to malaria, finding no evidence of a causal relationship. The veteran's new claims were not considered material.

The Board found no evidence of a diagnosed acquired psychiatric disorder during service or within one year of separation, and concluded that any current conditions are not related to the veteran's military service.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder due to lack of competent evidence linking his current condition to service.

The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and determined that it is well grounded. The appellant submitted new evidence linking his current psychiatric condition to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence, as well as insufficient medical evidence supporting a current psychiatric disorder or hearing loss. The gastrointestinal claim was reopened but not granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for skin cancer and an acquired psychiatric disorder. The decision found no current manifestation of a skin disability, and thus the claim was not well grounded. For the psychiatric disorder claim, the RO considered whether new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the previously denied claim based on the Colvin test, which was invalidated by Hodge v. West.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal, and the case is dismissed.

The Board found that the veteran's appeal was not timely filed, and thus denied his claim for service connection for schizophreniform disorder.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection were not well grounded and denied them.

The Board found that the veteran's claims of service connection for schizophrenia, hepatitis, chronic prostatitis, and hypertension were not well grounded. The evidence did not show any current disabilities or a link between these conditions and his military service.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran's schizophrenia is not due to a disease or injury incurred in service, and thus denied the claim for service connection.

The Board found no current diagnosis of schizophrenia and denied the claim for service connection. For seizure disorder, while there is a history of seizures during service, the evidence does not establish a nexus between the current condition and military service.

The Board found that the appellant's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not well-grounded due to a lack of medical evidence linking any current psychiatric condition to his active service.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected paranoid schizophrenia is considered plausible, but the evidence does not meet the criteria for a higher rating. The reinstatement of VA compensation benefits from March 1, 1993 to August 7, 1997 is also considered plausible due to the veteran's request and supporting medical records.

The Board found that the veteran's low back disorder and psychiatric disorder are not well grounded claims, as there is no competent medical evidence showing a direct relationship to service.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that the evidence did not well ground the claim.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to issues regarding representation and competency, as well as additional evidence needed.