PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2005

The Board found that there is no independently verifiable evidence of an in-service stressor sufficient to support a diagnosis of PTSD, and the veteran does not currently have PTSD as a result of his period of active service.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, a back disability, sinusitis (claimed as due to undiagnosed illness), fibromyositis (claimed as due to undiagnosed illness), thyroid disorder, and skin disorder. The appeals are granted.

The veteran's claim for a higher initial rating than 30 percent for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including consideration of a recent VA examination report.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD is permanently disabling and grants a permanent 100% disability rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to outstanding VA treatment records and missing Social Security Administration (SSA) records. The veteran's claims for PTSD, chloracne, benign prostatic hypertrophy, and a nervous disorder are being reviewed.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development regarding the veteran's claimed PTSD due to stressors during service.

The Board finds that the veteran's recurrent major depression is due to disease that was incurred in active service and grants service connection for this condition. However, there is insufficient evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD and thus denies service connection for PTSD.

The Board denied an evaluation in excess of 50 percent for post-traumatic stress disorder and did not address the claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the claims for service connection for bilateral trench foot and pulmonary tuberculosis, but these claims were denied as there is no competent evidence linking current disabilities to service. The claim for PTSD and low back injury residuals remains denied.

The Board found that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a higher rating than 50 percent, and denied his claim for a TDIU based on his service-connected disability.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected, with no specific date assigned.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of a back injury and PTSD. The veteran's current back condition was not caused by any incident of service, and there is no evidence of PTSD.,For the increased disability rating claim for residuals of a fractured right radius, the RO granted a 20% evaluation effective from January 2001.

The veteran's service connection claim for post-traumatic stress disorder is granted as his in-service stressors have been corroborated, and he meets the criteria for direct service connection.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for TDIU, finding that the criteria for TDIU were not met prior to February 24, 1998.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for a Travel Board hearing. The issues of service connection for Raynaud's disease and PTSD are still pending.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining treatment records and verifying in-service stressors. The veteran's PTSD is being evaluated again, and a VA rheumatology examination will be conducted to determine if arthritis or other hand/wrist/arm conditions are service-connected.

The veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and consideration of new evidence.

The Board found that the veteran's claimed acquired psychiatric disorders, including PTSD, were not incurred during her periods of active military service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include post-traumatic stress disorder, was denied as there is no credible supporting evidence of the claimed inservice stressors. The Board found that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy and thus his lay statements cannot be accepted without corroboration.

The Board denied reopening of claims for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence.