PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and private treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to assess the severity of the Veteran's PTSD.

The Veteran seeks an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for PTSD. The Board denied this claim, finding that the earliest possible effective date is July 19, 2005, which was the date of receipt of his initial claim.

The Veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD has been remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and additional treatment records.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have PTSD and thus, service connection for PTSD is denied.

The Board has granted service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. The claims of service connection for depression, a disability manifested by breathing difficulty to include sleep apnea, and residuals of a fractured nose are remanded for further development.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and TDIU were denied. The Board remanded the case for further development.

The Veteran is entitled to a TDIU for the period from December 15, 2009 through July 30, 2013 due to his service-connected disabilities preventing him from securing and following substantially gainful employment.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to assess the severity of his PTSD and an evaluation of his claim for individual unemployability.

The Veteran's psychiatric disorders, including PTSD and depression, were made worse by his military service.

The Veteran's PTSD has been rated at 70 percent since April 30, 2009.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a review of the service treatment records and an addendum opinion from the February 2010 VA examiner regarding the relationship between his bilateral hearing loss and military noise exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a new VA examination and consideration of his TDIU claim.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD was rated at 10 percent from June 16, 2007 to June 12, 2011 and upgraded to 30 percent effective June 13, 2011. The Board found that the evidence supported a 50 percent rating for this period.

The Veteran's PTSD is manifested by symptoms such as depressed mood, flattened affect, impaired short-term memory, suicidal ideation, and difficulty in maintaining effective work and social relationships. This results in mild to moderate occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for an unspecified psychiatric condition was reopened, and the Board found that there is at least a reasonable possibility of establishing service connection for his current diagnoses of major depressive disorder, PTSD, panic disorder with agoraphobia secondary to PTSD, generalized anxiety disorder, and alcohol dependence.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present acquired psychiatric disorder.

The Board has determined that the Veteran currently suffers from PTSD and that his current condition is related to his in-service stressors. The claim for service connection for tinnitus will be remanded for a new VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to address service connection for a heart disorder and TDIU due to PTSD, tinnitus, and hearing loss. The Veteran's claim is being reviewed again as part of this process.

The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for additional development, including obtaining updated VA and private treatment records, scheduling a VA psychiatric examination, and providing VCAA notice regarding TDIU claims.

The Veteran's claims for service connection were denied, and his claim for an increased rating for PTSD was also denied. The decision did not address the skin disorder or low back issues.