PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the establishment of service connection for PTSD, finding that the earliest submission indicating intent to apply for benefits was on March 15, 2001.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for a skin disability and PTSD, but denied them on the merits.

The veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD, and the RO has not fully developed his claim as required by the VCAA. The case is being remanded to ensure all necessary steps are taken to assist in substantiating his claim.

The Board found no evidence of a current diagnosis of PTSD and concluded that the appellant's claim for service connection for PTSD was denied.

The Board has received notification of the appellant's withdrawal of her appeal, and thus the appeal is dismissed.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now being sent back to the RO for development, including obtaining medical records from VA and non-VA providers, conducting a psychiatric examination, and considering any new evidence.

The Board is remanding the case for further development to consider whether a formal or informal claim for TDIU was pending prior to September 4, 1997 and if so, whether the veteran was unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of all service-connected disabilities prior to that date.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder and peripheral neuropathy, including as due to herbicide exposure, require additional development. The case is being remanded to the RO for further action.

The veteran's post-traumatic stress disorder is manifested by occupational and social impairment due to difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, resulting in a 50 percent disability rating.

The veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD is being remanded due to the need for verification of his reported stressors and a VA psychiatric evaluation.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for PTSD, finding that there was no credible evidence to support a diagnosis of PTSD associated with the veteran's military service.

The Board found no evidence of PTSD in the veteran's service records and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD, currently rated at 50 percent. The Board has decided to remand the case for further development and consideration.

The veteran's PTSD with depression is rated at 100 percent, his loss of vision in the left eye is rated at 40 percent, and his perforated left eardrum with hearing loss is rated at zero percent.

The veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD, but the case has been remanded due to need for additional development of evidence.

The VA granted a 50 percent evaluation for PTSD effective April 1, 2002. The appellant's symptoms included poor impulse control and social impairment.

The veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected PTSD and also wishes to determine if he can receive secondary service connection for bipolar disorder, which may affect the outcome of his PTSD claim. The case has been remanded for further development.

The veteran's PTSD with dysthymic disorder is currently rated at 50 percent, effective from August 2000. The RO has granted increased evaluations for other service-connected conditions but denied the requested increases for PTSD.

The VA has granted an initial disability rating of 50 percent for the veteran's PTSD, reflecting significant impairment in social and occupational functioning.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of recurrent dislocation of the left patella, pulmonary tuberculosis, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), a low back disorder, visual problems, and a disease or disorder affecting general health. The claim for bilateral hearing loss was not addressed in this decision.