PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2003

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there was no credible evidence to support her claimed in-service stressors and that she did not engage in combat with the enemy.

The veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD, which was initially granted with a 30 percent evaluation in May 2000. The RO should consider staged ratings and review the claim under Fenderson v. West.

The Board has granted a 50 percent rating for the veteran's service-connected PTSD, effective September 14, 2000.

The veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD from the initial grant of service connection is being remanded due to additional development required by recent court decisions.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and individual unemployability, finding that new evidence did not support reopening of his claim. The veteran's hearing loss disability was found to be sufficiently disabling but not to render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board found that the veteran's PTSD symptoms did not meet the criteria for a higher disability rating than 30 percent, as his symptoms were considered to be within the range of occupational and social impairment associated with a 30 percent rating.

The veteran had an appeal regarding the evaluation for PTSD and seeking an earlier effective date for Meniere's Disease. However, due to the death of the veteran, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate these claims.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder (other than PTSD) and granted her request to reopen the claim of service connection for a chronic urinary tract infection.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to procedural defects and the need for an addendum medical opinion.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 70 percent for PTSD was denied by the RO. The veteran is currently receiving a 70 percent evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's request for an earlier effective date of April 1, 1999 for a 100% rating for PTSD. The evidence did not show that there was an increase in disability to the 100 percent level prior to April 1, 1999.

The Board has determined that the veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder is related to exposure to mortar attacks in April 1970 during service in Vietnam. The claim for service connection is granted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an earlier effective date and a higher evaluation for PTSD, finding that May 3, 1999 was the earliest date of entitlement to service connection.

The Board found the veteran's claims for service connection of PTSD to be denied due to a lack of credible evidence supporting his claimed stressors and symptoms.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including a VA psychiatric examination to determine the etiology of any current psychiatric disorder present and whether it is related to service.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, finding that it is a direct service-connected condition.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a higher rating due to occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine if the veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder is related to a personal assault during service and whether it was aggravated by her second period of active duty.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional development, including a VA examination and review of medical records. The issue on appeal is whether she should receive a higher rating for her PTSD.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected due to an in-service assault. However, it was not able to establish a direct link between his other acquired psychiatric disorder and service, as there is no medical evidence supporting such a relationship.