PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2004

The Board has determined that further VA examinations are needed to determine the validity of the veteran's claims for PTSD, coronary artery disease, and special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance.

The veteran's PTSD has been rated at 50 percent since the initial claim, and a 70 percent rating was granted effective March 1, 1998. The foot disability remains at 10 percent.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran's PTSD is attributable to incidents during service and grants entitlement to service connection for this condition.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a rating higher than 10 percent since February 10, 2000.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to notify the veteran of the VCAA and ensure that all notification and development action required by the VCAA has been completed.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is being remanded due to the need for additional VA examinations and the submission of relevant medical records.

The Board has determined that additional evidence received since the last Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) should be considered in connection with the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD. The case is being remanded to the RO for this purpose.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development and notification, including a review of new medical evidence and compliance with VCAA requirements.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional medical records and a VA examination.

The veteran's appeal is for a higher initial rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The RO granted service connection and assigned an initial 50 percent rating effective from April 10, 2000. The case is being remanded to the RO for further development.

The Board cannot yet decide the claim for PTSD due to insufficient evidence. The claim for service connection for diabetes is denied as there is no indication of its onset during or within one year after service.

The veteran's PTSD is rated at the highest possible schedular rating of 100 percent, effective from May 1998. The issue of entitlement to TDIU is moot as a result.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for his service-connected PTSD, finding that no earlier effective date was warranted under VA regulations.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for initial evaluations in excess of 30 percent and 10 percent, respectively, for PTSD and Degenerative Disc Disease, Lumbar Spine.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD. The evidence now supports a finding that the veteran experienced in-service stressors, which are consistent with his reported combat experiences, and that he currently suffers from PTSD related to these stressors.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD symptoms have resulted in no more than occupational and social impairment, warranting an initial rating of 70 percent.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to April 29, 1997, for service connection of PTSD. The veteran did not submit a formal or informal claim before this date.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted a total disability rating for compensation effective April 9, 2004, in connection with the claim received on March 17, 1994.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for prostate cancer and PTSD, as well as his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability. The prostate cancer claim was denied due to lack of evidence linking the condition to service or any other service-connected disabilities. The PTSD claim was denied because the veteran failed to provide verifiable in-service stressors. The TDIU claim was also denied.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD and bilateral hearing loss, but remanded the issue of respiratory disorder. The veteran's claims were not supported by credible evidence of in-service stressors or acoustic trauma.