PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining information to corroborate the veteran's claimed in-service stressor and scheduling a VA psychiatric examination.

The Board has granted the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA compensation in the original amount of $8,824. The decision is based on the veteran's service-connected conditions and his total disability due to PTSD, which led to a declaration of incompetency.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO. The case will then be returned to the Board for further review.

The veteran's claim for a higher rating for his post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is being remanded due to the need for additional VA examinations and consideration of new evidence.

The veteran's appeal of the initial rating for PTSD is dismissed due to withdrawal. The case is now remanded for further development and consideration of his claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there is no direct evidence linking his current PTSD to military service.

The VA determined that the veteran did not have PTSD and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 100 percent rating for PTSD and Major Depressive Disorder was denied because there is no factual evidence to support an earlier effective date prior to August 15, 2002.

The Board found that the veteran does not meet the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and denied his claim for service connection.

The VA granted service connection for PTSD and assigned a 30 percent evaluation effective July 13, 2001. The veteran's bilateral hearing loss was also granted but with no compensable rating.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for PTSD and for an effective date earlier than September 18, 1998, for a grant of service connection for PTSD.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, residuals of cold injury to bilateral upper and lower extremities, bilateral hearing loss, and tinnitus. The decision states that the earliest possible effective date is August 21, 2001.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that she does not currently have a diagnosis of PTSD and thus cannot establish service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to verify the veteran's claimed stressors and determine if they are sufficient to establish service connection for PTSD.

The veteran seeks service connection for PTSD, which is secondary to personal assault. The case is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence and notification of sources other than service records that may corroborate the stressor incident.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD. The claim will now be reviewed.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a diagnosed psychiatric disability, including PTSD, and therefore service connection cannot be granted.

The veteran is entitled to a 100 percent disability rating for PTSD from the effective date of service connection (April 7, 2003) to the present.

The VA is required to provide the appellant and his representative a VCAA notice letter in connection with the increased rating claim for PTSD. The RO should then re-adjudicate the claim on appeal, including any additional evidentiary development deemed necessary.

The Board found that the veteran did not engage in combat with an enemy and thus, his claimed PTSD is not service-connected. The issue of total disability evaluation due to individual unemployability resulting from service-connected disabilities was addressed but not specified as granted or denied.