PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2009

The Veteran's claim for an effective date prior to March 16, 2007 for the grant of service connection for PTSD is denied.

The Veteran's claim for PTSD due to sexual trauma during service was granted. The issue of an increased rating for neuropathy of the left superficial peroneal nerve remains pending as its status is unknown.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD was denied because there is no credible evidence of a verified in-service stressor, and the Board found that his symptoms are more likely attributable to personal assault outside of military service.

The Veteran's PTSD with associated alcohol abuse has been found to result in significant occupational and social impairment, warranting a 70 percent disability rating.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for an initial rating of 50 percent for PTSD, effective April 19, 2002.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disorder, reopening of his PTSD claim, TDIU, and entitlement to an effective date earlier than February 25, 2000 for additional compensation for a dependent spouse. The claim for an effective date earlier than February 25, 2000 for additional compensation for a dependent child was denied due to lack of adequate documentation.

The Veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent, the maximum rating available under DC 9411. The VA adjudicator has determined that his symptoms do not warrant a higher rating.

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed stressors, including shooting a water buffalo and threatening to kill another soldier, were due to his willful misconduct. Therefore, service connection for PTSD was denied as it is not related to an in-service stressor. The VA examination report indicated that hepatitis C may have been contracted during service, but the examiner did not provide sufficient rationale or evidence to support this conclusion.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for PTSD was denied, and his claims for service connection for a lumbosacral spine disorder, hypertension secondary to PTSD, and coronary artery disease secondary to PTSD were also denied.

The Veteran's claim for an increased initial evaluation for service-connected PTSD is being remanded due to the need for additional VA medical records and further development.

The Veteran's PTSD has caused total social and occupational impairment, warranting a 100 percent disability rating from the effective date of service connection.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have PTSD related to his active service and therefore denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has ordered the VA to verify a stressor event in service and conduct another examination if verified, to determine whether the Veteran meets the criteria for PTSD.

The evidence does not show a diagnosis of PTSD based on an independently verifiable inservice stressor, and the claim for service connection is denied.

The Veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 50 percent, and the Board finds that this rating adequately reflects his current level of disability.

The Board has determined that additional development of the evidence is required before a decision can be made on the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for PTSD.

The Board has granted a 100 percent rating for the appellant's PTSD since the date of his claim, finding that he meets the criteria for such a rating based on severe impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, finding that her period of eligibility had expired and she did not meet any legal criteria for a modification or extension.

The Veteran's claims for PTSD and undiagnosed illness from Gulf War syndrome were denied as there is no current diagnosis of PTSD, and the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran has an undiagnosed illness. The claim for TDIU was also denied.

The Veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD and depression, which involves allegations of in-service personal assault. The Board has determined that additional development is needed to consider alternative evidence such as private medical records, civilian police reports, crisis intervention center reports, testimonial statements from confidants, or personal diaries/journals.