PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2008

The veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD and the Board finds that his current diagnosis is linked to in-service stressors, thus granting service connection for PTSD.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a TDIU, finding that his service-connected disabilities did not render him unemployable. The evidence showed he had cognitive disorder and PTSD but was still capable of performing light duty work.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining service personnel records and VA treatment records. The veteran's reported stressors will be verified by U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), and a VA examination may be conducted if stressors are verified.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, depression secondary to diabetes, CAD, valvular heart disease, acid reflux or GERD, elevated cholesterol and triglyceride levels, intermittent claudication, diabetic retinopathy, left foot and toe disability, psoriasis, and hypertension. The reasons for these denials are provided in the decision.

The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD was denied in 1992 and again reconsidered without change. He did not appeal either decision. The effective date of the grant of service connection is set at the date of receipt of his reopened claim on July 29, 2003.

The Board has decided that the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD must be remanded due to insufficient evidence regarding the claimed stressors.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including scheduling a VA examination and obtaining additional medical records.

The Board has ordered additional development to support the veteran's claim for service connection of psychiatric disability, including schizophrenia and PTSD. The case is remanded due to outstanding evidence that could be used to substantiate his claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD with impairment of sleep should be remanded to allow for proper consideration of evidence and a VA examination.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there was no credible evidence of an in-service stressor and thus insufficient basis to establish a diagnosis of PTSD.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected PTSD is being remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and additional records from SSA and Tampa VAMC.

The Board found that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy and thus could not establish service connection for PTSD based on a verified in-service stressor. The diagnosis of PTSD was made after discharge, but without verification of the claimed in-service stressors.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including stressor verification and a VA examination to determine if PTSD or another psychiatric disorder is present.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not have a service-connected disability rated as totally disabling for at least eight years prior to his death, and therefore, the appellant is not entitled to additional monthly DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1311(a)(2).

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for further development, including verifying the veteran's reported in-service sexual assault and obtaining additional records from the U.S.S. McClelland.

The Board denied the veteran a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD.

The Board has determined that the veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, including anxiety disorder, adjustment disorder, dysthymia, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), was incurred in active military service.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the veteran's PTSD disability evaluation from 100% to 50% was proper, and restoration of a 100% evaluation is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's chronic psychiatric disorder, variously diagnosed as bipolar disorder and PTSD, was incurred during his period of active military service.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for further development due to a failure to report for a scheduled hearing and other issues.