PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2005

The veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD, but the RO has not obtained her service medical records and needs to do so. The case will be remanded for further development.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that his claimed in-service stressors were not combat-related and insufficient evidence was provided to corroborate them. The TDIU claim is also denied as there is no current disability for which a TDIU could be granted.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, a bilateral knee disability, a heart disability, allergies, peripheral neuropathy of the right and left hands, and asthma due to lack of evidence of current disabilities.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a higher rating for his PTSD with Major Depression, finding that the evidence did not show deficiencies in most areas due to symptoms such as suicidal ideation or impaired impulse control.

The veteran's claims for an initial rating higher than 30 percent for PTSD and service connection for tinnitus are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting examinations.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD was not supported by evidence of an in-service stressor and thus denied his claim.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration of the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD.

The veteran's PTSD has been rated at 50 percent, and he is granted a TDIU.

The Board has granted a 100 percent rating for the veteran's PTSD, finding that his symptoms produce total occupational and near total social impairment.

The veteran's PTSD is productive of occupational and social impairment that more nearly approximates deficiencies in most areas, resulting in an increased rating to 70 percent.

The veteran's claim for special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or by reason of being housebound was denied as he does not meet the criteria for either benefit.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have current residuals of a head injury related to his military service and therefore denied the claim for service connection. The issue of PTSD was remanded but no specific decision has been made.

The veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD, which has been evaluated as 100 percent disabling from November 5, 1996. The RO must adjudicate whether the October 1985 rating decision contained clear and unmistakable error (CUE).

The veteran's claims for service connection for cardiovascular disease and a higher initial evaluation for PTSD were denied. The Board found that the veteran did not have cardiovascular disease during or after his military service, and that his PTSD was productive of total occupational and social impairment from August 2, 2000.

The Board found that the evidence did not demonstrate a diagnosis of PTSD and thus denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board denied an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for PTSD for the period from March 17, 1981, to July 14, 1994.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain additional evidence and for further development. The issues of entitlement to an earlier effective date prior to August 18, 1998, for a total rating for VA pension purposes, and entitlement to service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder are pending.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD and for a TDIU due to additional development being required, including obtaining VA medical records and arranging for a psychiatric examination.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, finding no evidence to support a diagnosis related to his active military service. The issue was reopened based on new and material evidence submitted by the veteran.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to unclear service connection and pension issues, including a need for additional medical evaluations.