PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2006

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including verifying the veteran's claimed TAD and arranging for a psychiatric examination.

The Board found that the veteran's PTSD, currently rated at 30 percent, does not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher rating. The evidence showed moderate impairment but no additional symptoms warranting a higher rating.

The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is being remanded due to the need to verify an in-service stressor and conduct a VA psychiatric examination.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD due to the absence of a clear diagnosis and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred.

The veteran's initial 50% evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder is being remanded due to the need for additional VA treatment records and consideration of a recent psychiatric examination.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD and evaluated the veteran's lumbar kyphoscoliosis, paravertebral fibromyositis, and bilateral hearing loss disability.,PTSD was not found to be incurred in or aggravated by active military service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding a reported in-service stressor for PTSD.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine if the veteran's PTSD is service-connected. The case will be remanded for a VA psychiatric examination and review of the claims file.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 50 percent, effective August 1, 2001. The claim for TDIU is moot as the veteran has retired and is no longer seeking employment.

The veteran's PTSD is manifested by increased irritability, anxiety, difficulty sleeping, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, episodes of depression, increased startle response, and hypervigilance. This has caused moderate occupational and social impairment due to reduced reliability and productivity. The criteria are not met for an initial rating higher than 50 percent for PTSD.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD manifests with symptoms such as depression, problems sleeping, and irritability, resulting in slightly reduced reliability and productivity. The current 30 percent rating is maintained.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD and hepatitis B/C claims cannot be granted as there is no verified in-service stressor for PTSD, and his hepatitis B/C are not service-connected.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the veteran's claimed PTSD. The RO is instructed to obtain additional medical records and verify any in-service stressors that may lead to a diagnosis of PTSD.

The Board found that the veteran did not serve in combat and there was no corroborating evidence of stressors related to his fear of being sent to Vietnam or incidents of discrimination. The diagnosis of PTSD is based on a claim of flashbacks to the Vietnam War, which he never served in. Therefore, service connection for PTSD cannot be granted.

The Board granted a higher initial rating of 30 percent for service-connected PTSD effective November 2, 2004. The veteran's PTSD symptoms include sleep disturbances, nightmares, intrusive thoughts/flashbacks, and panic attacks.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD is denied as there was no prior claim filed before April 21, 2003.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including depression and PTSD, due to insufficient evidence of verified stressors leading to these diagnoses.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a VA psychiatric rating examination and obtaining all relevant medical records. The claim will be re-adjudicated after these actions.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and a VA psychiatric examination.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to failure to comply with duty-to-assist requirements.