PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board found that the August 1999 rating decision denying service connection for PTSD was not clearly and unmistakably erroneous. The veteran's claim of reopening his PTSD claim based on new evidence was granted, but an earlier effective date prior to June 3, 2002, is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have post-traumatic stress disorder attributable to service and therefore, denied the claim.

The VA has determined that the veteran's PTSD symptoms, while significant, do not meet the criteria for a higher rating beyond the current 70 percent assigned.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD and found that new evidence received since the last final denial relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim, which is a current diagnosis of PTSD. The claim will be further evaluated based on this new information.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of PTSD and thus, service connection for PTSD cannot be established.

The veteran withdrew her appeal for service connection of post-traumatic stress disorder before the Board could make a decision.

The Board found that the veteran does not currently have PTSD and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, hearing loss, tinnitus, a condition manifested by pain in the legs, a condition manifested by back pain, dizziness/forgetfulness, and residuals of a head injury. The appeals on these issues are being remanded to the RO.

The veteran's PTSD is currently rated at 30 percent, effective October 30, 2003. The Board found that the current rating adequately reflects his symptoms and impairment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD and an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for residuals of a cervical spine injury, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on the veteran's range of motion.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is service-connected based on a diagnosed condition and a verified stressor related to his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to October 2000 for a 100 percent schedular rating for PTSD, finding that his PTSD did not meet the criteria for such a rating prior to that date.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient development of records and need for a VA medical opinion regarding PTSD.

The veteran's PTSD is currently evaluated at a 50 percent rating, effective March 24, 2000. The Board finds that the symptoms approximate the criteria for a 70 percent evaluation due to deficiencies in work and social areas.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD is related to his service and granted service connection. The back disability was not found to be directly related to service, but a current diagnosis of L4-5 degenerative disc disease was established.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD and schizophrenia are not related to his military service, and thus denied both claims.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claimed in-service stressors do not involve combat and require corroboration. The evidence of record does not corroborate his claimed in-service stressors, thus the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD due to lack of corroborating evidence and insufficient supporting medical evidence. The issue regarding muscle and nerve damage, claimed as due to exposure to Agent Orange, was remanded.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date prior to January 23, 1995, for a 100 percent evaluation for service-connected PTSD is denied.

The veteran's appeal includes claims for an earlier effective date, service connection for PTSD, and secondary service connection for various conditions. The case is being remanded to provide the necessary information and evidence for these claims.