Acquired psychiatric disorder Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected surgical scar warrants a 10 percent disability rating. The claim for direct service connection of an acquired psychiatric disorder remains denied as there is no new and material evidence presented to reopen it.

The Board denied service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, due to a lack of credible supporting evidence for the veteran's in-service stressor and failure to establish a link between his current condition and service.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have diagnoses of certain conditions, and there is no competent medical evidence linking his military service to any current disabilities. Therefore, these claims for service connection are denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a higher initial rating and an earlier effective date for his hypertension. The veteran was granted service connection for hypertension in May 2003, but the RO assigned a disability rating of 10 percent.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not have an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include depression, during service or within one year thereafter. The residuals of a back injury and bilateral knee injuries are also not shown to be related to service. Hearing loss is not demonstrated as a disability under VA regulations.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a personal hearing before the Board of Veterans' Appeals due to his incarceration at a correctional facility in Florida.

The Board denied the claim of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking his death to his service-connected conditions or events.

The Board found that the veteran's psychiatric disorder existed prior to his service in the National Guard and was not substantially aggravated by his active military service, thus denying his claim for service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a psychiatric disability (to include PTSD), right arm disability, bilateral knee disability, and bilateral leg disability. The claim for reopening the low back and left arm and hand disabilities was also denied.

The veteran requested to withdraw his appeal, and the Board has dismissed it.

The VA denied the veteran's claim of secondary service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, finding no evidence to support a link between his service-connected knee disabilities and his current psychiatric condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, back disability, thyroid disability, bilateral heel spurs, and acquired psychiatric disability (including PTSD), finding no competent evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a head injury, a psychiatric disorder claimed as manic depression secondary to a head injury, and a low back injury due to lack of evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, that is related to her military service. The evidence does not support a diagnosis of PTSD related to her active duty.

The Board has determined that service connection is not warranted for either a low back disability or a psychiatric disorder.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the claims for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder and hepatitis C. However, the evidence does not support a finding of service connection for either condition.

The Board has reopened the claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, but further development is needed to address whether the presumption of soundness applies and if so, whether it was rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence.

The VA determined that the veteran's back condition is not service-connected due to medication prescribed for his schizophrenia, and denied his claim for TDIU as he does not meet the criteria for a TDIU rating based on his single service-connected disability.

The Board has remanded the case back to the RO for additional development, including a VA examination and consideration of new evidence.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a medical opinion regarding the relationship between the appellant's current psychiatric disorder and his service, as well as potential issues related to pension eligibility.