PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2006

The Board has remanded the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 due to insufficient evidence regarding the diagnosis of a back fracture in 1991, which may affect both claims.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, a bilateral knee disability, and pes planus. The decision found no current psychiatric or physical disabilities for which VA compensation benefits could be awarded.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD and anxiety disorder do not warrant a rating higher than 50 percent, as they result in some occupational and social impairment but no deficiencies in most areas.

The veteran's PTSD was granted service connection, but his seizure disorder and diabetes mellitus were denied. The decision also addressed the initial rating for diabetes mellitus.

The veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance of another person or on the basis of being housebound is remanded due to incomplete examination.

The Board found that the July 2003 RO decision granting service connection for PTSD was clearly and unmistakably erroneous due to an error in fact regarding the veteran's qualification with the M-60 machine gun, leading to a denial of service connection. The January 2004 RO decision then severed this service connection.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional VA and private treatment records, as well as a new VA PTSD examination. The case will be reviewed again based on this new evidence.

The VA denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his post-traumatic stress disorder and bilateral hearing loss, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable disability evaluation criteria.

The veteran's PTSD was evaluated as 30 percent disabling from November 29, 2000 to December 31, 2001. From January 1, 2002 to April 12, 2004, the evaluation was increased to 50 percent. On and after April 13, 2004, the veteran's PTSD warranted a 70 percent evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran's current diagnosis of PTSD is supported by medical evidence and related it to his described in-service personal assault. However, there was no credible supporting evidence from service records or other sources to corroborate the occurrence of the alleged stressor.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development of records, including Social Security Administration (SSA) records.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus and PTSD, finding that the veteran did not have a current diagnosis of either condition. The claim was also denied on the basis that there is no evidence of an in-service stressor related to PTSD.

The veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions have been denied. The Board found no evidence of in-service trauma or aggravation, and the preponderance of the evidence did not support a finding that any condition was aggravated by service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD results in severe impairment, warranting a 70 percent rating.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to his desire for a Travel Board hearing. The case will be returned to the Board after the scheduled hearing.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral hearing loss, post-traumatic stress disorder, and an eye disorder due to his failure to report for VA examinations. The evidence does not support a finding of service connection for these conditions.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected based on credible evidence of a stressor incident during his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA compensation benefits in the amount of $2,730.70 due to his fault in creating the indebtedness and lack of undue financial hardship.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, substance abuse, low back condition, and right ankle condition. The claim of entitlement to an increased evaluation of the left knee condition was also denied as a matter of law.

The Board found that the veteran's discharge from his second period of service was under dishonorable conditions due to willful and persistent misconduct, including drug abuse. The bilateral foot disability and PTSD were not determined to be related to this period of service.