PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2008

The veteran's PTSD was rated at 30 percent prior to July 14, 2007 and later increased to 50 percent effective from that date. The appeal is denied as the criteria for higher ratings are not met.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected, having its origins in his military service. The claim for service connection for PTSD is granted.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the failure to provide proper notice of a scheduled Travel Board hearing and a Supplemental Statement of the Case. The case will be returned for further action.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of reopening his PTSD service connection due to lack of new and material evidence.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations and service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional examinations. The TDIU claim is held in abeyance until these issues are resolved.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection and TDIU was denied as the earliest date of entitlement is July 9, 2003.,The veteran did not meet the criteria for a TDIU prior to July 9, 2003.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the veteran's claimed in-service stressors for PTSD.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD has been rated at 70 percent disabling, reflecting severe social and occupational impairment.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is manifested by depression, panic attacks, flashbacks, nightmares, poor concentration, intrusive memories, exaggerated startle response, and social isolation. The current rating of 50 percent adequately addresses these symptoms.

The appellant withdrew his appeals for the issues of service connection and increased evaluations.

The VA denied the veteran's claims for a compensable rating for residuals of cerebrovascular accident and TDIU based on service-connected disabilities, finding that his service-connected conditions do not render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, residuals of gunshot wound to the head with paralysis of the left side and skull defect, and right arm loss of use status post laceration. The reasons include lack of in-service stressors related to combat or non-combat events, no evidence of a psychosis within one year after separation from service, and insufficient medical evidence linking current conditions to service.

The Board denied the claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of PTSD, finding no basis under which such an earlier date could be assigned.

The Board denied the veteran's claims to reopen his PTSD and chronic schizophrenia claims, finding that no new and material evidence was submitted.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not meet the minimum percentage requirements for a TDIU, and his disabilities are not shown to prevent him from obtaining or retaining substantially gainful employment.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to ensure compliance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 and other applicable laws, regulations, and guidance. The case will be returned to the RO for further action.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings for PTSD and low back disability were denied as he failed to report for scheduled VA examinations.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to issues not being addressed on appeal and a lack of representation.

The Board has granted an increased evaluation of 10 percent for migraine headaches and a non-compensable evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. The veteran's PTSD is not rated higher due to the lack of evidence showing severe economic inadaptability.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD, diabetes mellitus, and coronary artery disease status post myocardial infarction due to lack of verified in-service stressors, no herbicide exposure during service, and failure to meet the presumptive regulations regarding Agent Orange exposure. The appellant is not precluded from establishing direct service connection for these conditions.