PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2006

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to September 24, 1999, for service connection of PTSD with dysthymia is denied. The earliest effective date available is September 24, 1999.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD. The Board also found that the veteran's current diagnosis of PTSD is related to his military service, thus granting the claim.

Your appeals regarding chronic liver disease and PTSD are being remanded for a Travel Board Hearing at the RO in North Little Rock, Arkansas. The veteran requested such a hearing on his own behalf.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected based on evidence showing symptoms in service and continuity of symptomatology since service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 50 percent, as his symptoms do not warrant such an evaluation based on the severity and frequency of his psychiatric symptoms.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD was incurred in active service and grants the claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence submitted by the veteran and other procedural issues. The claim for service connection for PTSD will be reconsidered.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD as there was no verified in-service stressor and the evidence did not support a diagnosis of PTSD.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy during service and there is no credible supporting evidence to establish the occurrence of the claimed stressors. Therefore, the claim for service connection for PTSD is denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including gathering more details about the veteran's claimed stressors and conducting psychological testing.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have residuals of a head injury with bleeding through the ears or PTSD as a result of his service and denied both claims.

The veteran's PTSD has been rated at 50 percent since the initial rating decision, reflecting moderate impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The Board found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD due to verified stressors during his service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection due to procedural issues, and denied his claims of service connection for a low back disorder, glaucoma with decreased visual acuity of the right eye, and hypertension with headaches and dizziness.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records, providing corrective VCAA notice, and re-adjudicating the claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bipolar disorder did not have its onset in service and there is no evidence of a psychosis during the initial post-service year. The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including bipolar disorder and PTSD, is denied.

The Board has granted service connection for impotence secondary to diabetes mellitus, but denied an increased rating for PTSD. The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 70 percent, effective January 14, 2004. The appeal for a higher evaluation has been granted.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination and additional records. The current level of severity of PTSD will be assessed, and any benefit sought on appeal remains denied.

The Board has remanded the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for PTSD due to additional delay and legal notice issues. The RO should provide legally compliant notice, consider whether there was clear and unmistakable error in the initial denial of service connection, and readjudicate the claim.