PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2000

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a rating of 100 percent effective February 28, 1994.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for PTSD, but awarded past-due benefits. The attorney is not eligible to receive a fee from these past-due benefits due to exceeding the 20% limit.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected thoracolumbar spine disorder does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 20 percent, and denied his claim for service connection for PTSD.

The veteran is seeking a total disability rating based on unemployability due to his service-connected disabilities. The RO has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting VA examinations.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and multiple sclerosis are not well-grounded, as there is no medical evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA and non-VA treatment records.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for headaches as secondary to a shell fragment wound and for increased ratings for his shell fragment wounds. The veteran was not granted service connection for headaches, but his existing service-connected conditions were evaluated.

The veteran's PTSD is rated at 70 percent, and his residuals of shell fragment wounds to muscle groups XI and XII are currently evaluated at 30 percent. The higher evaluations for the muscle group disabilities are granted.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. The claim is well grounded, but VA cannot establish service connection as there is no competent evidence of a stressor corroboration or a diagnosis of PTSD resulting from military service.

The Board has granted a 70 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected PTSD, finding that it meets the criteria for such an evaluation based on significant social and occupational impairment.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current, clear diagnosis of PTSD related to any inservice stressor and there is no credible supporting evidence that his claimed inservice stressors actually occurred. As such, service connection for PTSD was denied.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent, reflecting moderate impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a back disability and an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder, finding that there was no competent evidence linking any current back disability to service. The total rating claim is pending further development.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD due to a lack of credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressors occurred.

The Board has granted an increased evaluation of 70 percent for the veteran's service-connected PTSD, effective from when the claim was filed.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn by the appellant prior to a decision being made. The issues of service connection for asthma, an earlier effective date for PTSD, increased ratings for PTSD and left foot disability are dismissed.

The VA determined that there is no competent medical evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD, and thus the claim for service connection for PTSD was not well grounded.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board has determined that a higher rating is not warranted based on his symptoms.

The veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability is rated at 100 percent, and his hypertension is currently rated at 10 percent. The veteran is unable to work due to his psychiatric condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD, finding that his claimed stressor was not related to combat and thus his lay testimony alone could not establish the occurrence of the claimed in-service stressor.