PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2008

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD diagnosis is valid and based on verified in-service stressors, thus service connection for PTSD is granted.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including VA psychiatric and neurological examinations to assess the current severity of his service-connected PTSD and peripheral neuropathy.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need to obtain additional records from Fort Snelling Mental Hygiene Clinic in 1970 or 1971, and for further development.

The Board found that the veteran's hypertension did not have onset during service and was not related to herbicide exposure. The VA examiner determined that the veteran does not meet the criteria for post-traumatic stress disorder as per DSM-IV, and thus denied both claims.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence of a diagnosed PTSD and the need for further examination.

The veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder is being remanded due to the need for further development of evidence regarding in-service stressors.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant a rating higher than 50 percent, as his symptoms do not meet the criteria for a 70 percent evaluation.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for PTSD and found that new evidence supports a current diagnosis of PTSD. The claim is now considered on its merits.

The Board found that the veteran was unemployable due to his service-connected PTSD, and granted an effective date of August 25, 1999 for TDIU based on VA medical records indicating he had been unable to hold a job for several months prior.

The veteran's claim for service connection for ulcerative colitis with bleeding ulcers and spastic colon secondary to PTSD was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of a direct relationship between PTSD and the veteran's ulcerative colitis.,For his PTSD, the veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent from September 12, 1996 to October 12, 2000 was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity during this period.,The veteran's claim for an evaluation in excess of 70 percent since October 13, 2000 was also denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of severe impairment in work or social functioning due to PTSD symptoms.

The Board has remanded the case for a new VA examination to address deficiencies in previous examinations and ensure compliance with the Board's remand directives.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD due to new and material evidence submitted since the June 2000 denial. The Board also found that the veteran incurred PTSD as a result of his military service, including exposure to in-service stressors such as rocket attacks and handling casualties.

The veteran's PTSD was granted an initial evaluation of 70 percent effective June 17, 2008.

The veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, joint pain, muscle pain, and a sleep disorder were denied. The Board found that the veteran has PTSD as a result of his in-service exposure to combat stressors during the Persian Gulf War.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining records from SSA and providing proper notice.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for dementia and an increased rating for bilateral hearing loss. The claim for TDIU was deferred due to the interrelated nature of the issues.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and to reopen her claim for hearing loss, finding that there was no evidence of a stressor related to active duty or new and material evidence supporting her hearing loss claim.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD, finding that his symptoms did not warrant a higher evaluation based on the criteria provided in the Rating Schedule.

The veteran's appeal is being REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, D.C. for further review.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD due to a lack of credible supporting evidence corroborating stressor events in service, and no diagnosis based on such events. The preponderance of the evidence is against this claim.