PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2008

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining private treatment records and scheduling a psychiatric examination to determine the severity of the veteran's PTSD.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional VA medical records. The issues of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for PTSD, and entitlement to service connection for tinnitus and migraines are pending.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed psychiatric disabilities, other than PTSD, were not incurred or aggravated during service and are not otherwise related to his military service. The claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability (other than PTSD) is denied.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the award of a total rating based upon individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities, finding that no formal or informal claim was received prior to March 7, 2001.

The veteran's appeal for service connection for PTSD has been dismissed due to his death.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a video-conference hearing and further development.

The Board found that the veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD and major depressive disorder, was not incurred in or aggravated by service. The claim for service connection was denied.

The veteran's PTSD symptoms, including hypervigilance, flashbacks, nightmares, impaired impulse control, social avoidance, and depression, have resulted in severe impairment of his occupational and social functioning. The Board has granted a staged rating of 50 percent prior to July 26, 2007 and 100 percent thereafter.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD related to her in-service stressor, and thus service connection for PTSD is denied.,There is no evidence showing that the veteran's cerebrovascular accident was caused by service or any other factor. The Board therefore denied service connection for this condition.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a schedular evaluation in excess of 30 percent.

The Board granted an initial evaluation of 70 percent for PTSD from June 13, 1997 to July 17, 2003.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of January 4, 2002, for a 100 percent rating for PTSD.

The veteran's PTSD does not cause occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, so his claim for a higher rating is denied.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient verification of in-service stressors and a need for further examination.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 50 percent for his service-connected PTSD, finding that the evidence did not support such an increase.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining additional information about the veteran's claimed stressors and providing a VA examination to assess whether his current mental health conditions are related to service.

The Board found that the veteran's statements regarding in-service stressors were not credible and did not provide sufficient details to verify his claimed combat experience. As a result, service connection for PTSD was denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for lumbar spine and left knee disabilities, but granted a 50 percent rating for PTSD effective July 7, 1997. The veteran was informed of these determinations.

The Board has reviewed the veteran's claims for service connection for various conditions, including asbestosis (also claimed as COPD), PTSD, positive TB test, hypertension, degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine with lumbago and sciatica, scoliosis, and skin fungus. However, there is no competent medical evidence to support a finding that any of these conditions were incurred or aggravated by service.

The Board finds that the veteran is reasonably discharging his responsibility for C.M.'s support, and thus a general apportionment of benefits is not warranted. The appellant has been receiving limited income from her daughter's Social Security payments but does not have more than $932.67 in monthly expenses.