PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD. The Veteran does not have PTSD.

The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not incurred in or aggravated by service and denied his claim. For PTSD, the Board granted service connection but noted that the Veteran's symptoms did not warrant a higher initial rating.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional VA examination and consideration of his hospitalization records. The issue remains whether he should receive a higher rating for PTSD.

The Board has reopened the appellant's claims of service connection for schizophrenia and PTSD, finding that new evidence received since the last final denial raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the underlying claim.

The Veteran's PTSD with depression is currently rated at 30 percent, effective January 12, 2006. The symptoms described do not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for arthritic changes of the lumbar spine and PTSD were denied as they do not meet the criteria for higher disability ratings under the applicable VA rating schedule.

The Veteran's PTSD is rated at 50 percent, and the Board has granted a 100 percent rating based on total occupational and social impairment.

The Board found that the evidence does not show a diagnosis of posttraumatic stress disorder based on an independently verifiable inservice stressor, and therefore denied service connection for PTSD.

The Board has ordered the VA to verify specific stressors claimed by the Veteran and to obtain his medical records from a VA facility. The case is now remanded for further development.

The Board has determined that additional development is required to address the merits of the Veteran's claims for PTSD and dental disorder, including as secondary to service-connected diabetes. The case is REMANDED for further action.

The Board found that the Veteran has reasonably discharged his responsibility for paying child support to the appellant, and thus a general apportionment of the Veteran's disability compensation benefits on behalf of the Veteran's minor children is not warranted. A special apportionment was also denied due to lack of updated financial information from both parties.

The Board found no evidence linking gastroesophageal reflux to service and denied the claim. The case was also remanded for a VA psychiatric examination to determine if any current psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, is related to in-service stressors.

The Board has granted service connection for a cervical disability, finding that the Veteran's credible report of an in-service injury is consistent with his current diagnosis. The claim for posttraumatic stress disorder was denied as there is no evidence of such a condition.

The Veteran's service-connected PTSD is currently evaluated as 50 percent disabling, and the Board found that it does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD as there were no confirmed in-service stressors and the Veteran did not engage in combat with the enemy.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD due to a lack of corroborated in-service stressors.

The Veteran's PTSD does not meet the criteria for a higher initial rating than 50 percent, as his condition does not cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.

The Veteran's asthma has not required frequent medical visits or the use of systemic corticosteroids, thus preventing a higher rating.,PTSD is not related to any in-service stressors and no current diagnosis was found.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for manic depressive disorder and posttraumatic stress disorder were denied, as was his request for increased ratings for residuals of fracture and lacerations to the left hand and a left clavicle fracture. The AOJ found no new and material evidence presented to reopen the claim for manic depressive disorder.

The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to issues related to line of duty determinations and other potential evidence that needs to be considered.