PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) decisions — 2015

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his request for a videoconference hearing. The claims of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, tinnitus, PTSD, and an acquired psychiatric disorder will be considered further.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including PTSD. The evidence received since the February 2004 rating decision relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the underlying claims.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the May 2006 rating decision that assigned a 30 percent initial rating for PTSD. The evidence at the time did not support a higher rating.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development to determine his exposure to herbicides and service in Vietnam, as well as the nature of any psychiatric disability.

The Veteran's PTSD warrants a rating of 70 percent, effective May 12, 2014. The claim for TDIU based on service-connected PTSD is granted.

The Veteran's PTSD claim was denied, and he is currently rated at 10 percent for his PTSD. The appeal regarding the undiagnosed illness claim is still pending.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his incarceration, and a hearing request needs to be accommodated in accordance with VA procedures.

The Veteran's PTSD is manifested by occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas such as work, family relations, judgment, thinking, and mood. The Board found that the disability picture does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Veteran's PTSD is rated at 100% from August 27, 2003 to May 26, 2009. The effective date of service connection for PTSD was set as August 27, 2003.

The Board has determined that further development is needed before a decision can be made on the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD.

The Veteran's PTSD warrants a rating of 70 percent, effective prior to February 26, 2014.

The Veteran's right shoulder disability was granted increased ratings from 10 to 20 percent disabling effective July 17, 2009, and then again from 20 to 40 percent disabling effective February 15, 2011. The Veteran also received a grant of an increased rating for his right shoulder scar.

The Board denied the claim for service connection of PTSD due to lack of evidence confirming a personal assault during service, but granted the claim and found it just as likely as not that the Veteran has PTSD on account of a traumatic event in service.

The Veteran's PTSD and depressive disorder were found to not meet the criteria for a higher rating than 30 percent from January 10, 2006, to April 17, 2011, or 50 percent from April 18, 2011 to February 9, 2012.

The Board has remanded the case due to an insufficient medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's service-connected PTSD and his cause of death, specifically HIV/AIDS.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and acquired psychiatric disorders, as well as his claim for an increased rating for chronic right ankle sprain with moderate arthrosis were all denied by the RO. The Veteran is currently rated at 20% for his right ankle disability.

The most probative evidence is against finding that the Veteran's current psychiatric diagnoses are etiologically related to active service. The Board found no verified in-service PTSD stressor and there was no evidence of psychiatric symptomatology during service.

The Board has remanded the case due to failure to comply with previous directives for further evidentiary development, including scheduling VA examinations and verifying the Veteran's contact information.

The Veteran's PTSD has not resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, or even more severe total occupation and social impairment. Therefore, a higher initial schedular rating is not warranted.

The Veteran's anxiety disorder is currently rated at 10 percent disabling, and the Board finds that an evaluation in excess of this rating is not warranted.