PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to procedural issues and incomplete notification.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining unit records and researching the veteran's exposure to stressors during his service in Vietnam. The claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The veteran's PTSD and major depression prevented him from maintaining substantial gainful employment since December 21, 1995. An effective date of December 21, 1995 for a 100% evaluation for PTSD is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD warrants a 70 percent disability rating, reflecting significant occupational and social impairment.

The Board has determined that the veteran engaged in combat and his PTSD is linked to his service, specifically his time on a gun mount where he handled misfired shells. The Board finds that the statutory and regulatory criteria for entitlement to service connection for PTSD have been met.

The veteran's claim for increased ratings for PTSD and TDIU is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and a statement regarding his employment.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for headaches, TMJ (jaw disorder), PTSD, and a cervical spine disability. The appeals were based on new and material evidence.

The veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, residuals of facial injury including teeth and sinuses, and sinusitis have been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not establish a current diagnosis of PTSD related to service or any verified in-service stressor.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a psychiatric disability other than PTSD in January 1980. The RO subsequently denied the reopening of this claim in April 1983, finding that no new and material evidence had been received to support the claim.

The VA determined that the veteran's hepatitis C was not incurred in or aggravated by active service, and denied his claim. The Board also found insufficient evidence to establish a diagnosis of PTSD based on alleged combat stressors.

The Board has granted a 100 percent rating for PTSD effective from June 17, 2003, based on the veteran's total occupational and social impairment due to his service-connected PTSD.

The VA granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 30 percent disability rating, but the veteran is seeking an increased rating. The Board found that the evidence did not show that his PTSD warranted a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling examinations. The veteran's claims will be reconsidered based on the new evidence.

The veteran's PTSD was rated at 70 percent from the effective date of service connection until his death, as it met criteria for a 70 percent rating based on severe impairment in work and social functioning.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD and granted it. The effective date of this decision is July 24, 1995.,Pension benefits were also granted with an effective date of July 24, 1995.

The veteran's case is being remanded for further development and to provide proper VCAA notice.

The Board denied service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), in an April 1984 decision. The veteran's motion argues that the error was not applying 38 U.S.C.A. § 1154(b) but does not change the outcome as the diagnosis of PTSD was not supported by current evidence.

The Board found that the veteran's alcohol abuse is not due to or aggravated by his service-connected PTSD. The criteria for a higher schedular disability rating for PTSD were also not met.

The veteran's claims for service connection for drug or alcohol abuse secondary to PTSD and for monthly compensation for PTSD at the rate of $2,193.00 from July 1, 1991 are being remanded due to incomplete development.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to issues with stressor verification and obtaining additional medical records.