PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2010

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 100% rating for PTSD is denied because he was engaged in substantial gainful employment during the year prior to January 4, 2002.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for bilateral hearing loss and service connection for PTSD are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including verification of stressors and a VA psychiatric examination.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to verify the appellant's claimed stressors and determine if he meets the criteria for service connection for PTSD.

The Board finds that it is as likely as not the Veteran's psychiatric disability, diagnosed as depressive disorder, is related to his active service. Service connection for a psychiatric disability is granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of the Veteran's claimed in-service stressors and need for a medical opinion regarding his acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD.

The Veteran's PTSD was initially granted and rated at 30 percent from June 29, 2005 to December 7, 2005. Effective December 8, 2005, the rating was increased to 70 percent.

The Veteran's combined rating for his service-connected disabilities is at least 80%, but the evidence does not show that these conditions alone are of such severity as to preclude him from obtaining or maintaining substantially gainful employment.

The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of PTSD and that this condition is related to his active service, specifically his participation in combat during the Battle of Kelly Hill in Korea. As such, the claim for service connection for PTSD is granted.

The Veteran's psychiatric disability warrants a staged rating of 50 percent prior to May 4, 2010, and 70 percent from that date.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, a sleep disorder, erectile dysfunction, and gastrointestinal condition were denied. The Board found that the Veteran did not have a currently diagnosed sleep disorder.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and examination, including verification of the Veteran's claimed stressors and a VA psychiatric examination to determine if his current acquired psychiatric disorders are related to service.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the August 2005 rating decision that denied service connection for PTSD. The Veteran's claim was not entitled to an effective date prior to October 27, 2006.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional records and an examination.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, is being remanded due to the need for further development and examination.

The claim for service connection for PTSD was previously denied in a July 1999 rating decision and is now being reopened based on new evidence.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's posttraumatic stress disorder was incurred in service, as it existed prior to service and was aggravated during service. As a result, the presumption of soundness is not rebutted, and the claim for service connection is granted.

The Veteran's claims for PTSD, depression, and insomnia were denied as there is no competent evidence showing a current diagnosis of PTSD or linking the conditions to service. The claims for hip disorders were also denied due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board is remanding the case to the RO for further action, including obtaining additional evidence and affording the appellant a VA examination. The appeal will be considered on its merits after these actions.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining service personnel records and a VA psychiatric examination to determine if any diagnosed psychiatric disorder is related to active duty service.

The Board has granted the Veteran's request to reopen his claim for service connection for PTSD, and will proceed with a determination of whether new evidence supports this reopening.