PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2001

The Board found that the veteran did not engage in combat and there was no clear diagnosis of PTSD. The claim for service connection for PTSD was denied.

The Board has granted service connection for a left arm disorder and peripheral neuropathy. The remaining issues of service connection for PTSD, a left shoulder disorder, and a skin disorder are addressed in the Remand section.

The veteran's PTSD has been rated at 30 percent since the effective date of service connection, reflecting significant impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 50 percent.

The Board denied a higher rating for PTSD and did not address the pleural cavity injury with retained foreign bodies in the left upper lobe, as it was already assigned a 20 percent rating. The appeal is pending.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent, and the Board has determined that a higher initial evaluation of 50 percent is warranted.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, bilateral defective hearing, and tinnitus due to lack of evidence supporting these conditions. The appeals are not about service connection at all.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an effective date prior to October 31, 1997 for a 50% disability rating for PTSD with dysthymia. The RO had previously increased the rating from non-compensable to 30%, and then to 50% effective October 31, 1997.

The Board found that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a rating higher than 30 percent, and his cervical spine disability is currently evaluated as 20 percent disabling.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD, since February 5, 1999, meets the criteria for a 30 percent evaluation based on symptoms such as depression, anxiety, and intermittent panic attacks.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

The Board found the attorney's fees excessive and unreasonable, reducing them to zero for services rendered before May 23, 2000, related to the claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation for a service-connected psychiatric disorder.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 70 percent for his service-connected PTSD and Reactive Depression was denied. However, he was granted a total disability rating based on unemployability due to his service-connected psychiatric disabilities.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD does not result in considerable industrial impairment or occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, thus denying a higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, concluding that there is not sufficient evidence to establish a diagnosis of PTSD related to his military service.

The veteran's mental health disorder, described as anxiety neurosis, was rated at 100 percent for accrued benefits purposes due to its severity and impact on the veteran's ability to function in ordinary activities.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is not well grounded and requires additional development to verify his claimed in-service stressors.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 100 percent disability rating, indicating total occupational and social impairment due to symptoms such as gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living, disorientation to time or place, and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD is being remanded due to the need for further development, including obtaining VA treatment records and a psychiatric examination.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for waiver of overpayment of vocational rehabilitation subsistence benefits in the amount of $303.79, finding that the appellant was at fault and that recovery would not result in undue hardship or defeat the purpose of the benefits.