PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2008

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further action, including scheduling a Travel Board hearing.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder is being remanded to the RO due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and providing proper notice as required by Vazquez-Flores v. Peake.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for PTSD has been dismissed as a matter of law due to finality of previous decisions.

The veteran's PTSD was rated at 30 percent prior to February 15, 2006 and increased to 50 percent effective from that date.

The Board has granted service connection for PTSD due to a reported in-service sexual assault, which was corroborated by competent sources. The veteran's claims for stomach disorder and migraine headaches are not supported by the evidence presented.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD does not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher evaluation, and thus grants an initial evaluation of 30 percent.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected, as it reasonably resulted from his experiences in Vietnam.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD is manifested by complaints of depression and anxiety, difficulty with feelings of anger, hypervigilence, daily intrusive thoughts and memories of fear for his life, avoidance of television news and war movies, and limited contact with friends and family. The disability warrants a 50 percent rating.

The Board found that the veteran does not have migraine headaches associated with his active military duty and denied service connection for this condition. The claim for PTSD was remanded due to insufficient evidence of an in-service stressor.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD and hypertension, finding that the evidence did not support a link between these conditions and service.

The Board denied an effective date earlier than September 3, 1996 for the grant of service connection for PTSD. The evidence received since the July 1999 decision is not considered new and material to reopen the claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for coronary artery disease and an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent for PTSD. The TDIU claim was also denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 70 percent disability rating, reflecting severe impairment in social and industrial functioning.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD and other claimed disabilities, finding that the evidence did not support a link between these conditions and service.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD due to the lack of credible supporting evidence of an in-service stressor.,The Board also denied compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for retropharyngeal abscess, finding no additional disability as a result of VA treatment.

The Board denied service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome (including Epstein-Barr disease), brain disorder manifested by atrophy, cognitive impairment, memory loss, executive dysfunction, poor writing, and poor motor skills, pericarditis, toxoplasmosis, and hypertension. The veteran's claims were not based on exposure to ionizing radiation.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a diagnosis of PTSD based on a verified in-service stressor and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 70 percent, effective September 24, 2000. The Board found that the veteran's PTSD results in total occupational and social impairment.

The veteran's PTSD was initially rated at 30 percent, then increased to 50 percent effective January 8, 2004. The current rating of 70 percent is in effect as of March 19, 2008.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient reasons and bases for its decision, specifically regarding the credibility of the veteran's claimed in-service stressor. The Court found that the RO had conceded the proximity to Private [redacted] but did not provide evidence supporting this concession.