PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development of his medical records and consideration of his claim for an increased initial rating for PTSD.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of PTSD, finding that no new and material evidence was submitted to reopen his previously denied claim.

The veteran's claims for service connection for PTSD, a liver condition, and bilateral leg cramps were denied as there is no evidence of current disabilities or in-service events that would support these claims.

The Board has granted an increased rating to 30 percent for PTSD, but the duodenal ulcer issue remains pending and will be remanded.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations of hypertension and left ear hearing loss disability, as well as his service connection claims for heart disease, tinnitus, PTSD, and sinusitis. The RO found that there was no current evidence of a compensable level of hearing loss or a diagnosis of heart disease, PTSD, or sinusitis in service.

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

The veteran's appeal is remanded for additional development, including obtaining outstanding treatment records and scheduling a VA psychiatric examination to assess the severity of his PTSD.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development and consideration of his claims, including obtaining medical records and scheduling VA examinations to assess the severity of his service-connected conditions.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for a psychiatric disorder, including PTSD, finding that there was no credible evidence supporting his claimed in-service stressors and thus no basis to establish a diagnosis of PTSD.

The veteran's PTSD is rated at 70 percent disabling, fibromyalgia at 20 percent, and hiatal hernia with acid reflux disease at 10 percent. The effective date for these ratings remains unchanged.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the claim for service connection of PTSD. The veteran's military records support exposure to stressful events, and medical evidence supports a link between his diagnosed PTSD and his military service.

The veteran seeks service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder, but the RO has not provided adequate notice of the VCAA and failed to complete all necessary development. The case is being remanded for further action.

The Board has granted an effective date of October 10, 1997 for a 100 percent rating for PTSD and has denied the claim for an earlier effective date for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability.

The Board has found credible supporting evidence of a diagnosis of PTSD that is linked to stressors in military service, and thus granted the veteran's claim for service connection.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, including PTSD and multiple shell fragment wounds, render him in need of regular aid and attendance due to his severe physical and mental incapacity.

The Board has dismissed the appeal because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal, and therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.

The veteran's claims for PTSD and increased diabetes mellitus were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not establish a valid stressor related to service, and concluded that there was no new and material evidence to reopen his previously denied PTSD claim.

The VA denied an increased rating for PTSD, finding that the symptoms primarily manifested as a mildly anxious mood, depression, and restricted affect without meeting criteria for higher ratings.

The VA has granted a 100% evaluation for the veteran's service-connected PTSD, considering his symptoms and GAF score.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development and requests for additional information from the appellant, as well as further examination and review of her medical records.