PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran does not have PTSD that is directly related to service, and thus denied his claim for service connection. The examiner concluded that the obsessive-compulsive disorder began during military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension, finding no current diagnosis of the condition. The issue of PTSD was not ready for appellate review.

The Board denied service connection for PTSD and seizure disorder, finding that the claimed stressors were not verified and there was no credible supporting evidence of their occurrence. The veteran's claims for a higher rating for bilateral hearing loss are addressed in the REMAND portion.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD does not warrant an increased disability rating beyond the current 50 percent, and his claim for TDIU is also denied.

The veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder. The case has been remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and records.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy and whether his claimed service stressors actually occurred. The VA will attempt to obtain additional medical records, verify the veteran's service stressors, and schedule a comprehensive psychiatric examination.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD based on new and material evidence submitted since the previous denial in March 1996. The issue of whether this claim should be granted on its merits is addressed in a separate REMAND.

The Board denied the reopening of the claim for service connection for PTSD due to lack of new and material evidence, despite previous denial in April 1985.

The veteran withdrew his appeal for an increased rating of tinnitus. The Board is remanding the case to obtain additional evidence regarding PTSD, including a transcript from a 1981 trial and VA treatment records.

The veteran's claim for a total compensation rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining VA medical records and scheduling VA examinations.

The VA has increased the veteran's PTSD rating to 30 percent, but his condition is still considered moderate with impairment in psychological, social, and occupational functioning.

The Board has granted service connection for PTSD, finding that new and material evidence supports reopening the claim. The effective date is not specified.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for additional development, including obtaining VA treatment records and addressing whether the December 1994 rating decision was final. The veteran's claim for an increased PTSD rating and TDIU are also being remanded.

The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including compliance with VA procedures and a VA psychiatric examination.

The veteran's PTSD symptoms do not meet the criteria for a higher rating as they do not include significant impairment in thought processes, communication, or social functioning.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an initial disability rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD, finding that his symptoms warranted a 30 percent evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder and there is no evidence linking his claimed symptoms to an in-service stressor. As such, service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder was denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that his claimed stressors were not verified and he did not have combat duty. The diagnosis of PTSD was first made many years after service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's PTSD results in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, warranting a 50 percent evaluation.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to the veteran not receiving a copy of the January 2005 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC).