PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran did not meet the criteria for a 100% evaluation prior to April 20, 2005. The effective date for the 100% rating is set at April 20, 2005.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for PTSD and a back disorder. Additional evidentiary development is required before further consideration of the underlying claims.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD warrants an initial rating of 30 percent prior to November 2, 2005, and no more than 10 percent from that date.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 70 percent, the maximum schedular rating available. The symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher disability rating.

The Board has remanded the veteran's appeal for additional development, including obtaining VA mental health clinic records and arranging for a new VA examination to determine the severity of his PTSD. The case will be adjudicated again with consideration of staged ratings.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to verify the veteran's claimed in-service stressors, particularly his alleged exposure to an atomic bomb blast in Nevada. The case is being remanded for further development and consideration.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD, but granted service connection for generalized anxiety disorder and depression with a 10 percent initial evaluation. The veteran's claim for an increased rating to 50 percent was also denied.

The Board found that the appellant's psychiatric disability, sinus disability, and chronic headache disorder were not incurred in or aggravated by service due to his alcohol intoxication during a June 1998 incident. The Board concluded that these disabilities resulted from willful misconduct.

The Board found no evidence of a current right ankle disability, PTSD, or an acquired psychiatric disorder that is related to service. The veteran's claims for these conditions were denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is related to sexual and mental abuse she experienced in service, and thus grants service connection for PTSD.

The Board found that the veteran's cervical spine disorder and PTSD were not incurred in or aggravated by service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for clarification of representation, additional evidence collection, and a gynecological examination.

The veteran's PTSD is manifested by intrusive thoughts, irritability, hypervigilance, depression, flashbacks, nightmares, social isolation, trouble handling conflict, and difficulty making friends. The Board has determined that the disability warrants a 50 percent evaluation.

The veteran's claims for service connection of PTSD, paranoid schizophrenia, and degenerative joint disease of both knees are being remanded to allow for additional development.

The veteran requested withdrawal of his appeal for the issues related to PTSD, bilateral cataracts, rectal and colon polyps, GERD, burning of the feet, legs, and hips, and hypertension. The Board dismissed these appeals.

The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to insufficient efforts in investigating the veteran's stressor allegations and obtaining a VA examination regarding PTSD, chronic bronchitis, hypertension, and ED.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and a psychiatric disability, other than PTSD. The evidence did not establish that the claimed stressors occurred in service or were related to service.

The veteran's claim for special monthly compensation based on aid and attendance or housebound status is being remanded due to the need for further examination to determine his mobility needs and home care requirements.

The Board has granted service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, finding that new and material evidence supports the veteran's claim.

The veteran's service-connected PTSD does not meet the criteria for a TDIU due to its impact on his employment history and educational background.