PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have PTSD and therefore cannot establish service connection for this condition.

The evidence does not show that the Veteran currently has PTSD related to stressful incidents involving his active military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral knee disorders, neck injury residuals, and PTSD are related to his military service. The claims for these conditions have been granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service connection claim for PTSD is granted, as it was found to be a direct result of his military service without any need for additional evidence or stressor verification.

The Veteran's PTSD has resulted in total occupational and social impairment, warranting a 100 percent evaluation.

The Board has granted service connection for a low back disorder, cervical spine disorder, and bilateral knee disorder. The Veteran's PTSD remains at a 30 percent rating.

The Veteran's PTSD has caused deficiencies in most of the areas of family relations, judgment, thinking and mood without total occupational and social impairment. For the rating period from June 30, 2004, the criteria for a 70 percent evaluation for PTSD have been met.

The Veteran's PTSD symptoms have been rated at 70 percent, reflecting significant occupational and social impairment. Service connection for degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine was denied. The Veteran is granted a TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities.

The Board found that the Veteran's sleep apnea and PTSD were not incurred or aggravated during his active service, and thus denied both claims.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for conjunctivitis is denied. The Board finds that the current rating of 10 percent adequately reflects the severity and symptomatology of his condition. However, the Veteran's claim for service connection of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) requires further development as there are other psychiatric diagnoses in addition to PTSD.

The Board has reopened the claim for PTSD and granted service connection, finding that there is equipoise of evidence regarding whether the Veteran's current diagnosis of PTSD is related to his in-service stressors.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for review of additional evidence he submitted, and readjudication of his claim for an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected PTSD.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and therefore, service connection for PTSD is denied.

The Veteran's appeal is currently in remand status due to the need for additional examinations and service records, as well as a local RO hearing.

The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there is a diagnosis of PTSD and a confirmed stressor related to his military service.

The Board found insufficient evidence to grant the Veteran's claims for service connection for hypertension, erectile dysfunction or loss of use of a creative organ, and PTSD as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The claim for service connection for left eye condition was granted.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of bilateral hearing loss or hypertension, and thus cannot establish service connection for these conditions. The claim for PTSD is being remanded.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to missing treatment records and the need for a new VA examination to assess the severity of his PTSD.

The Veteran's PTSD was rated at 30 percent from August 26, 2002 to July 24, 2005 due to occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform tasks.

The Board denied the Veteran's application to reopen his previously denied claims for service connection for a psychiatric disorder other than PTSD and dementia. The evidence received since the prior decisions does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating these claims.