Acquired psychiatric disorder Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's headaches with seizures and psychiatric disability were not incurred in or aggravated by his active service.

The Board determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a nervous disorder, as the veteran's statements were considered redundant and did not provide significant new information.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including obtaining more details about alleged stressors during service and seeking additional medical records. The appeal is currently pending due to ongoing development.

The veteran's paranoid schizophrenia is rated at 100 percent due to total occupational and social impairment, with symptoms including flat affect, impaired judgment, and difficulty in relating.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and requested evidence. The case will be returned to the RO for additional development, including obtaining outpatient records from the VA Medical Center and scheduling a VA psychiatric examination.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including requesting additional information from the veteran and seeking to corroborate his alleged stressors. The veteran is also required to undergo medical examinations for a back disability and psychiatric disability.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that the new evidence submitted was not material and did not change the outcome.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for GERD and a psychiatric disorder. The case is being remanded to obtain additional medical records.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current schizophrenia began during his active service and is therefore granted service connection.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now being remanded back to the RO for specific actions including verifying service dates, obtaining medical records, and informing the veteran of what evidence he needs to submit.

The Board has granted the veteran's claims for service connection for a seizure disorder with dizziness, loss of memory and slurred speech, as well as an acquired psychiatric disability to include PTSD.

The Board found no evidence of a current psychiatric disorder and denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability due to new and material evidence submitted since the August 1999 denial. The case is now remanded for further examination and determination of whether the current condition is related to service.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current psychiatric disorder and therefore denied his claim for service connection on a secondary basis.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current psychiatric disability is not related to his active duty service, but it may be aggravated by his service-connected disabilities. Therefore, service connection for the extent of aggravation will be granted.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now being sent back to the RO for a VA psychiatrist's review of the claims folder, including specific questions about suicide attempts related to chemical exposure.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending requests for evidence and clarification. The case is now being reviewed by the RO, with additional examinations and records requested.

The veteran's service-connected schizophrenia is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board found that this rating was appropriate based on his symptoms.

The Board granted service connection for schizophrenia effective from May 11, 2003, based on new and material evidence submitted after a final denial in 1974.

The Board has ordered additional development of evidence and the case is being remanded for further review due to procedural issues.