PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2008

The Board found that new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD. However, the veteran's stressors were not corroborated, and there was no direct link between his in-service experiences and his current PTSD diagnosis.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a rating higher than 30 percent, as his symptoms do not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The veteran's PTSD has been rated at 30 percent, and the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted based on his current symptoms.

The Board has granted service connection for the veteran's back disorder and increased his PTSD evaluation to 70 percent. The Board also found that he is entitled to a TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities.

The Board found that the evidence received since the August 1992 denial did not provide a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for PTSD, and thus denied the reopening of the claim.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD results in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, warranting an initial disability evaluation of 50 percent.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy, and thus cannot establish service connection for PTSD based solely on his reported stressors. The case is remanded to obtain additional evidence corroborating his claimed stressors.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's PTSD is attributable to service and grants service connection for PTSD.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD. The case is remanded to verify in-service stressors and schedule the veteran for a VA examination.

The Board has decided to remand the case for a VA examination due to the veteran's claim of PTSD, which is linked to her service duties. The examiner will assess whether she developed PTSD as a result of her service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed PTSD was not incurred in or aggravated by military service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient verification of the veteran's alleged in-service stressors, and a new VA psychiatric examination is needed to determine if PTSD was caused by these verified stressors.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there was no qualifying in-service stressor and thus failing to meet the criteria for service connection.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a VA examination and consideration of outstanding treatment records.

The Board found that there is no current diagnosis of PTSD, and thus denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran did not incur an acquired psychiatric disorder during service and denied his claims for service connection.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD due to new evidence provided by a private psychiatric evaluation, which supports a current diagnosis of PTSD. However, since there is no credible supporting evidence that the in-service stressor actually occurred and given the absence of combat-related service records, the claim cannot be granted.

The veteran's claim for service connection for arthritis of the left hand and PTSD was denied as there is no current diagnosis of a left hand disability or PTSD related to his military service.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluation of transurethral prostate resection and service connection for PTSD were denied. The Board found that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of PTSD, thus denying his claim for service connection for PTSD. His claims regarding new and material evidence for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are also denied.

The veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound status is being remanded due to incomplete treatment records, gaps in evidence, and the need for additional examinations.