POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

MIKE SOBIECKI · 2025 · Case ID: A25053819

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran, an Army Veteran who served from September 1967 to May 1969, appeals the denial of an increased disability rating for his service-connected PTSD. The Board reviewed the evidence of record up to the December 2023 rating decision, noting that any later-submitted evidence could not be considered. The Veteran sought a 100 percent rating for PTSD, claiming his symptoms warranted a higher evaluation than the 50 percent rating assigned by the RO from October 2018 to May 2023. The Board considered the Veteran's testimony, his wife's statement, and various VA treatment notes from October 2018 through June 2022. While the Veteran experienced fluctuating symptoms, including nightmares, anxiety, and irritability, the Board found that his symptoms, even at their worst, did not rise to the level required for a 70 percent or 100 percent rating under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. The Board noted the Veteran maintained positive relationships, engaged in some leisure activities, and had generally normal mental status exams regarding thought process and speech. The examiner's conclusion that the PTSD symptoms best fit the 50 percent criteria was considered evidence against a higher rating. The Board denied the increased rating for PTSD, finding the 50 percent rating adequately compensated for the Veteran's symptomatology.

Rationale

Symptoms did not meet criteria for 70% or 100% rating.; Mental status exams generally normal regarding thought process and speech.; Positive social/family support factors noted.

Service Branch

ARMY

Special Benefit

TDIU

Docket No.

250116-502797

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25053819
Decision Date: 06/20/25 Archive Date: 06/20/25

DOCKET NO. 250116-502797
DATE: June 20, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to a disability evaluation in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from October 31, 2018, to May 9, 2023, is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

1. The severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's symptoms from October 31, 2018, to May 9, 2023, did not more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The criteria for a disability evaluation in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from October 31, 2018, to May 9, 2023, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The appellant is a Veteran who served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1967 to May 1969.

This case comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2024 Higher-Level Review (HLR) rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In that decision, the RO confirmed and continued the initial 50 percent rating for PTSD granted in a December 2023 rating decision. The RO staged the ratings, granting a disability rating of 50 percent from October 31, 2018, and a 100 percent disability rating from May 10, 2023.

The Veteran appealed to the Board with a January 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement); the Veteran selected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2023 rating decision which was then subject to HLR. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Increased Rating

Disability evaluations are determined by application of the criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. An evaluation of the level of disability present must also include consideration of the functional impairment of the Veteran's ability to engage in ordinary activities, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. When a question arises as to which of two ratings apply under a particular diagnostic code, the higher evaluation is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

The Veteran's entire history is to be considered when making disability evaluations. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995).

The Court has held that "staged" ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999).

If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating; otherwise, the lower
considered when making disability evaluations. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995).

If two disability evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. All reasonable doubt as to the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

1. A disability evaluation in excess of 50 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) from October 31, 2018, to May 9, 2023.

The Veteran contends that his PTSD warrants a 100 percent rating beginning October 31, 2018. The Veteran's service-connected PTSD is rated 50 percent disabling from October 31, 2018, to May 9, 2023, and 100 percent disabling from May 10, 2023, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. Accordingly, the Veteran's PTSD is rated under the General Rating Formula for Rating Mental Disorders (General Rating Formula). 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

Under the General Rating Formula, a noncompensable rating is warranted where a mental condition has been formally diagnosed, but symptoms are not severe enough either to interfere with occupational and social functioning or to require continuous medication. Id.

A 10 percent rating is warranted where there is occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by continuous medication. Id.

A 30 percent rating is warranted where there is occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and normal conversation, due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). Id.

A 50 percent rating is warranted where there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory; impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbance of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id.

Under the General Rating Formula, a 70 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work like setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id.

A 100 percent rating is assigned for total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id.

To the extent that the medical evidence reflects diagnoses of other psychiatric disorders, where it is not possible to distinguish the effects of nonservice-connected conditions from those of a service-connected condition, the reasonable doubt doctrine dictates that all symptoms be attributed to the Veteran's service-connected disability. See Mittleider v. West, 11 Vet. App. 181 (1998).

The use of the phrase "such symptoms as," followed by a list of examples, provides guidance as to the severity of symptomatology contemplated for each rating. The use of such terminology permits consideration of items listed as well as
of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id.

The use of the phrase "such symptoms as," followed by a list of examples, provides guidance as to the severity of symptomatology contemplated for each rating. The use of such terminology permits consideration of items listed as well as other symptoms and contemplates the effect of those symptoms on the Veteran's social and work situation. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002).

In other words, in applying the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula), the Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The analysis must include a determination as to whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. Then, the Board must determine whether the associated symptoms, both listed and unlisted, caused the level of impairment required for a higher disability rating. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The Veteran submitted a statement in support of his claim for PTSD in February 2019. He noted his PTSD stressors from his time in Vietnam. With respect to his PTSD symptoms at that time, he continued to struggle with sleep, fear, paranoia. He had dreams where he was reliving time in Vietnam, which caused him to fight and throw punches in his sleep.

His wife also provided a statement in February 2019 and said that the Veteran was restless when asleep, he tossed and turned often, and that she had heard him crying and yelling in his sleep. He would jump when she would call his name. She reported that he swung his arms around in his sleep and hit her at least twice. She said that before he started counselling, she would notice him sitting around and not doing anything besides staring. She noted that he often closed the windows ensuring the doors were locked. She added that he would jump when she called his name. She said he was not interested in his hobbies anymore.

The Veteran's attorney specifically referenced several VA treatment notes to show the Veteran's symptomatology more aligned with a 100 percent disability evaluation, including the October 2018 Psychiatry Initial Evaluation Note, December 2018 Clinical Psychologist Addendum Note, March 2019 Psychiatry Telephone Encounter Note, and March 2019, April 2019, and May 2019 Psychiatric Medication Management Notes. These notes have been considered and are included in the discussion below.

The Veteran began seeking care at the VA with respect to his mental health in October 2018. A Psychiatry Initial Evaluation Note shows the Veteran reported not feeling secure anymore, locking the doors and double checking them often, sleeping very lightly, and having nightmares. He endorsed trauma symptoms including intrusive memories, avoidance of internal and external reminders, changes in cognitions, and hypervigilance. He also endorsed severe depression symptoms including little interest in activities, feeling down, difficulties with sleep and appetite, fatigue, feeling bad about himself, difficulties in concentrating, and slowed movements.

He noted being married to his third wife for the last 19 years, and that they shared 4 stepchildren. He endorsed having a son who is a pastor and described their relationship as "wonderful". He shared he had one half-brother that he was close to. He was living with his wife and two dogs. For recreation/leisure activities, the Veteran noted travel, spending time with church friends, and playing cards.

The Veteran reported that he was retired from Eli Lilly as a laborer. He had also previously worked jobs that included welding, making military trucks, janitorial work, and production.

On mental status examination, the Veteran appeared well-groomed and cooperative with normal speech. His mood was sad, and his affect was flat. Insight and judgement were fair. No perceptual disturbances or delusions were endorsed or witnessed. The psychologist rendered diagnoses of other specified trauma and stressor related disorder and unspecified depressive disorder
-brother that he was close to. He was living with his wife and two dogs. For recreation/leisure activities, the Veteran noted travel, spending time with church friends, and playing cards.

The Veteran reported that he was retired from Eli Lilly as a laborer. He had also previously worked jobs that included welding, making military trucks, janitorial work, and production.

A December 2018 Addendum to an Individual Therapy Progress Note shows the Veteran experienced symptoms of PTSD, including intense and prolonged psychological distress at exposure to internal and external cues, avoidance of internal and external stimuli, persistent and exaggerated negative beliefs or expectations about himself, others, or the world, diminished interest in activities, feeling detached, hypervigilance, exaggerated startle response, concentration problems, sleep disturbances.

March 2019 Psychiatry Note shows the Veteran made significant progress in Prolonged Exposure Therapy. He reported that there were brief situations that still caused anxiety but was able to go into the situations anyway and his anxiety went down. He indicated that he was able to go out into public with his wife and enjoy it, he reengaged in activities he enjoyed (including wood working). He reported he was able to think about his previous traumas and not become overwhelmed. He struggled with arousal symptoms including hypervigilance and was easily startled, although he was functional. He noted continuing struggles with concentration issues as well.

A March 2019 Psychiatry Telephone Triage Note following his March 2019 VA examination shows the Veteran called to report an increase in anxiety and becoming easily frustrated since his recent VA examination. A few days later, an Individual Psychotherapy Note shows the Veteran again reported an increase in anxiety and irritability sine his VA examination because it brought up his history, including childhood abuse and Vietnam. The Veteran arrived anxious and flushed with an increased heartrate. He appeared alert, engaged, cooperative, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Speech was normal in regard to rate, rhythm, tone, and volume. Thought process was logical and linear and thought content showed no evidence of psychosis. The Veteran denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and did not endorse hallucinations or delusions. April 2019 Individual Psychotherapy Note shows the Veteran shared that he continued to struggle at times with increased anxiety and increased irritability at "things that don't matter".

Mental status exams were consistently normal until May 2019, occasionally noting the Veteran's affect was flat, somewhat restricted, anxious, or dysphoric, or that he had poor insight. A May 2019 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran presented with increased psychomotor activity, increased volume, tone, and content of speech, stressed mood, and an anxious and restless affect. The Veteran reported anxiety over the last year and getting agitated very easily. He endorsed problems falling asleep, nightmares, concentration, and problems with memory. He stated he had 2 accidents, but it is unclear what kind of accident the Veteran was referring to or what it was caused by. He added that he felt on guard at times, uncomfortable in public, and always looked for exit signs. On questioning, the Veteran endorsed road rage. He reported feeling hurt because he was denied service connection for PTSD. Later in May 2019, an Individual Psychotherapy Note revealed the Veteran shared an increase in irritability and frustration. He discussed his continued disappointment at not getting service connection for PTSD and said that it, if he had gotten it, it would have been "like an accomplishment" after he completed his mental health treatment. The clinician noted discussion with the Veteran that his treatment helped his PTSD symptoms and recovery is expected. He appeared alert, engaged, cooperative, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Speech was normal in regard to rate, rhythm, tone, and volume. Thought process was logical and linear and thought content showed no evidence of psychosis. The Veteran denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and did not endorse hallucinations or delusions.

In June 2019, the Veteran reported feeling on edge and irritable. However, he decided to discontinue therapy and continue medication management.

January 2020 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran reported a recent nightmare where he was in Vietnam. He admitted feeling on alert, having nightmares, and having anxiety. However, things were going better for him overall, and that his anxiety was
engaged, cooperative, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Speech was normal in regard to rate, rhythm, tone, and volume. Thought process was logical and linear and thought content showed no evidence of psychosis. The Veteran denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and did not endorse hallucinations or delusions.

In June 2019, the Veteran reported feeling on edge and irritable. However, he decided to discontinue therapy and continue medication management.

January 2020 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran reported a recent nightmare where he was in Vietnam. He admitted feeling on alert, having nightmares, and having anxiety. However, things were going better for him overall, and that his anxiety was under control. He appeared anxious and restless but was otherwise normal on Mental Status Exam. He appeared alert, engaged, cooperative, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. Speech was normal in regard to rate, rhythm, tone, and volume. Thought process was logical and linear and thought content showed no evidence of psychosis. The Veteran denied suicidal and homicidal ideation and did not endorse hallucinations or delusions.

February 2020 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran reported that things were going much better for him. The Veteran said he was sleeping better and more solid. He reported that he could concentrate better, his nightmares had gone, and he overall felt well. He said he was going to church at least twice per week.

April 2020 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran reported that he was overall doing well. He asked for an increase in one of his medications because he was having an increase in nightmares.

June 2020 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran reported things were going very well for him, his anxiety was under control, and his sleep improved after increasing his medication. He noted that he was retired but was doing volunteer work and was a carpenter as well. The Veteran reported the same in August 2020. November 2020 Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran again reported things were going very well for him regarding his anxiety, but that his sleep was bad in that he felt his mind was racing even during sleep.

In January 2022, the Veteran reported increased stress. He reported that he had benefitted from prior engagement in mental health services but that his symptoms generally persisted. He was fighting at night with restlessness and bad dreams. He stopped taking some mental health medications as he felt they were not helpful.

In March 2022 Psychiatry Medication Management Note, the Veteran resumed medication management and was reassessed for his history of PTSD and depression. The Veteran reported ongoing nightmares/poor sleep, hypervigilance, avoidance behaviors, hyperarousal and hyper startle, irritable moods, feeling on alert/guarded, trouble managing anger, low mood, feeling numb or disconnected and less interested in things he used to do. He denied excessive difficulties with memory or cognitions aside from some times of trouble concentrating when anxious or distressed. The clinician marked that the Veteran expressed frequent frustration with the process of pursuing compensation and expressed interest in obtaining service connection. The Veteran noted feeling dismissed by the VA and not listened to.

In June 2022 Psychiatry Medication Management Note, the Veteran reported an improved mood and reduced anxiety and hyperarousal. He denied nightmares. He said the medicine was helping. He said he felt calmer and not as on edge or irritable, though some symptoms did persist. He reported occasional intrusive memories from Vietnam. He again reported frustration with seeking service-connection for PTSD. In July 2022, the Veteran reported an improvement in nightmares and that he was sleeping better since re-starting medication. He said he was more irritable and being bothered by intrusive memories of Vietnam. He reported no update on his claim for service connection for PTSD.

In January 2023, Psychiatry Medication Management Note shows the Veteran reported the medication was helping, that he overall felt more calm and less reactive, and that he was not as on edge or irritable. He said he still struggled occasionally with intrusive memories from Vietnam and some struggles going out in public, crowds, or new places. He was sometimes forgetful but was not getting lost or causing any concerns.

March 2023 Individual Psychotherapy Note shows the Veteran complained about his benefits and believed he had "fallen through the cracks". He had a nightmare in the last week and that he felt troubled the day after nightmares. He indicated that he sometimes felt irritable and depressed.

The Veteran underwent VA examination in March 2019. The examiner marked no symptoms associated with PTSD because they found no diagnosis. The accompanying opinion was inadequate, as the opinion was written by a psychology intern without
not as on edge or irritable. He said he still struggled occasionally with intrusive memories from Vietnam and some struggles going out in public, crowds, or new places. He was sometimes forgetful but was not getting lost or causing any concerns.

The Veteran underwent VA examination in March 2019. The examiner marked no symptoms associated with PTSD because they found no diagnosis. The accompanying opinion was inadequate, as the opinion was written by a psychology intern without a supervising psychologist to sign off. Although conducted by a psychology intern, there is no reason to doubt the probative value of the recording of the occupational and social histories provided by the Veteran during the examination. The Veteran reported retiring from Eli Lilly in 2000 after 27 years of employment. Afterwards, he drove a shuttle bus for car dealerships and did maintenance at a church until two years prior to the exam when he started having blood clots in his legs and was diagnosed with diverticulitis. The Veteran reported positive relationships with his children and grandchildren. He noted that he and his wife enjoyed traveling and often took day trips. They liked to go out to dinner, do church activities like gospel concerts, go to bible study group, and go out to dinner with the group members or entertain them at their home.

On VA examination in October 2020, the examiner marked PTSD symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, and disturbances in motivation and mood. He was noted to have poor insight and was tearful and depressed. The Veteran reported nightmares and being agitated all the time. He endorsed road rage, hating crowds, planning escape routes, and a phobia of telephones and ATM machines. He believed he was a dangerous drive because his mind would wander when driving and he missed turns. He described wanting to return to work, feeling unproductive, and feeling embarrassed that he didn't work.

The aforementioned symptomatology more closely approximates occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, rather than the occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, which is required for the higher 70 percent rating.

In the October 2020 examination report, the examiner marked that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms resulted in occupation and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, which is the level of severity described under the 50 percent rating for PTSD. While the adjudicator makes the determination of what evaluation is warranted for the service-connected PTSD, the VA examiner's conclusions that the PTSD was summarized best by the criteria described under the 50 percent rating is evidence against a finding that the PTSD caused occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking or mood to warrant a 70 percent rating or higher.

Regarding occupational impairment, the Veteran reported volunteering and doing carpentry. At his October 2020 VA examination, he described wanting to return to work, feeling unproductive, and feeling embarrassed that he didn't work. He did not indicate any PTSD symptoms caused him occupational impairment, and the record does not reflect that his symptoms caused occupational impairment during the appeal period. In February 2020 he reported physical limitations from ankle and bilateral knee surgeries causing him problems picking things up. This evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has occupational impairment with deficiencies in most areas due to PTSD.

The Veteran attended church regularly and maintained relationships with his wife, children, and grandchildren and described them as "wonderful". During suicide risk screenings, positive social/family support and a sense of responsibility to family were consistently noted as factors that decreased risk of suicide. This is against a finding that the Veteran has social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's symptoms seem to have improved at times and worsened at other times. However, the currently assigned 50 percent rating adequately compensates for the symptomatology as the rating criteria specifically consider that the Veteran will have reduced reliability and productivity at times due to his symptoms.

As to the other criteria documented in the 70 percent rating criteria, the documented symptomatology does not rise to this level of severity. The record does not suggest that the Veteran exhibited obsessional rituals interfering with routine activities, special disorientation, hallucinations, or delusions. The Veterans speech and thoughts were regularly documented as normal, coherent, logical, and goal-oriented rather than illogical, obscure, or irrelevant. The Veteran was regularly documented to be well-groomed and appropriately dressed, which goes against finding that the Veteran neglected his personal appearance or hygiene. Further, while the Veteran endorsed
compensates for the symptomatology as the rating criteria specifically consider that the Veteran will have reduced reliability and productivity at times due to his symptoms.

As to the other criteria documented in the 70 percent rating criteria, the documented symptomatology does not rise to this level of severity. The record does not suggest that the Veteran exhibited obsessional rituals interfering with routine activities, special disorientation, hallucinations, or delusions. The Veterans speech and thoughts were regularly documented as normal, coherent, logical, and goal-oriented rather than illogical, obscure, or irrelevant. The Veteran was regularly documented to be well-groomed and appropriately dressed, which goes against finding that the Veteran neglected his personal appearance or hygiene. Further, while the Veteran endorsed irritability and road rage, he did not become violent with his family or others. He continuously and adamantly denied homicidal or suicidal ideation, intent, or planning.

Further, the Veteran did not exhibit symptoms aligning with a 100 percent disability rating, such as: gross impairment in thought processes or communication, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, disorientation to time or place, or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.

Therefore, the Board finds that the PTSD symptoms are most closely approximated by the assigned 50 percent disability rating. Importantly, as described in detail above, the evidence persuasively weighs against the Veteran showing occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking or mood; nor are his PTSD symptoms of similar severity, frequency, and duration to warrant an increased 70 percent disability rating. As the Board has found that the disability picture does not rise to the level of severity of the 70 percent rating, it follows that the Board finds that the disability picture does not rise to the level of severity of the 100 percent rating. Considering the total disability picture, as noted in detail above, the Board finds the evidence persuasively weighs against an initial evaluation in excess of 50 percent. Therefore, a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD is denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

2. Entitlement to a TDIU

A total rating for compensation purposes may be assigned where the schedular rating is less than total when it is found that a Veteran is unable to obtain or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of service-connected disabilities and has a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more or two or more service-connected disabilities when one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability or disabilities to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. 38 U.S.C. §1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a).

This TDIU is part and parcel of the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for PTSD, so the period on appeal for a TDIU also goes back to October 31, 2018.

Here, the Veteran reported that he previously worked as a bus driver until 2015 but dealing with the road and the people was too much for him, so he quit. See October 2020 VA examination. Accordingly, the Board finds the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is raised and part-and-parcel of the increased rating claim on appeal. Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009).

The Veteran's employment and education history is unclear. On remand, the AOJ should ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940.

This matter is remanded for the following action:

1. Ask the Veteran to complete a VA Form 21-8940.

Michael Sobiecki

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board S. A. Feroce

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer