PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's claimed acquired psychiatric disability, including bipolar disorder, depression, and PTSD, is not related to service. The claim was denied as there is no credible evidence of in-service stressors supporting her PTSD diagnosis.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that the reported in-service stressor occurred and is supported by credible supporting evidence.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to attempt to verify his reported in-service stressors and determine if he meets the criteria for service connection of PTSD and depression.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development and consideration of his claims, including obtaining treatment records from various sources.

The Veteran's appeal for an increased rating for prostatectomy with residual incontinence was withdrawn prior to the Board making a decision.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and scheduling a VA psychiatric examination. The issues on appeal include increased ratings for PTSD and lumbodorsal disability, service connection for hypertension and erectile dysfunction (secondary to PTSD), and TDIU.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his psychiatric disorders, other than PTSD. The case will be returned to the Board for further consideration.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, including major depressive disorder and PTSD, is being remanded due to the need for additional development of his claims file.

The Board has found service connection for PTSD. The Veteran's current sleep apnea and bilateral hearing loss are being remanded for further examination to determine their etiology.

The Veteran's PTSD has been granted effective from May 6, 2002. The initial rating assigned is 30%.

The Board has remanded the case to schedule the Veteran for a Travel Board hearing at the RO due to the lack of a transcript from his previous hearing.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date for service connection due to lack of evidence that could change the assigned effective date, which is August 16, 2005.

The Board has re-characterized the issue on appeal as one for service connection for any psychiatric disability. The RO denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for major depressive disorder, but did not address his claims for PTSD and other psychiatric conditions.

The Veteran's PTSD is currently evaluated as 30 percent disabling, the maximum rating available under Diagnostic Code 9411.,His malaria has been inactive since his treatment in 1951 and there are no current residuals.

The Veteran's PTSD symptoms worsened from moderate to severe, causing occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.,Since August 1, 2005, the Veteran's leishmaniasis has not been active but resulted in residual skin conditions.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD is currently rated at 70 percent effective May 10, 2006. The rating reflects significant occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's PTSD is related to traumatic events during his military service, and grants service connection for this condition. The Board also found no evidence linking depression or anxiety disorders to service.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further action, including scheduling a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO. The case will be returned to the Board after this additional development.

The Veteran's PTSD has been productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, resulting in an increased evaluation to 70 percent for the portion of the appeal period extending from January 30, 2012 forward.

The Veteran's PTSD has been rated at 30 percent, and the Board found that it does not warrant a higher rating based on current symptomatology.