ACQUIRED PSYCHIATRIC DISORDER

EMILY TAMLYN · 2026 · Case ID: A26014081

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served from January 2009 to September 2018, appeals the denial of entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board reviewed the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 rating decision, which granted service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder with a 70 percent rating. The veteran sought an increased rating, arguing for a 100 percent evaluation. The Board considered multiple VA examinations and treatment notes from March, April, and May 2024, which indicated symptoms of depression, anxiety, suicidal ideation, social withdrawal, and impaired motivation. A private psychologist's report from August 2024 also noted significant occupational and social impairment. However, the Board found the January 2025 VA examination more probative, noting that while the veteran experienced symptoms consistent with a 70 percent rating, such as depressed mood, chronic sleep impairment, and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, the evidence did not demonstrate total occupational and social impairment required for a 100 percent rating. The Board found the veteran competent and credible but concluded that the symptoms did not meet the criteria for a 100 percent rating, citing the veteran's ability to manage financial affairs and the improvement of some symptoms with medication. The Board found the evidence persuasively weighed against an increased rating beyond 70 percent, and as the evidence weighed against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule did not apply. The appeal for an increased rating beyond 70 percent was denied.

Rationale

Symptoms more characteristic of 70% rating than 100%; Improvement with medication noted; Total occupational and social impairment not demonstrated

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250510-542705

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26014081
Decision Date: 02/17/26 Archive Date: 02/17/26

DOCKET NO. 250510-542705
DATE: February 17, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial rating more than 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder (also claimed as major depressive disorder and anxiety disorder) is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Throughout the entire period on appeal, the Veteran's service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. Symptoms of total occupational and social impairment were not demonstrated.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for entitlement to an initial rating more than 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.132, Diagnostic Code 9400-9434.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran had active duty service from January 2009 to September 2018.

A rating decision was issued in January 2024 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. In pertinent part, it deferred the issue of entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder for development.

Thereafter, a March 2024 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder.

In September 2024, VA received a fully developed claim again seeking service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder.

The January 2025 rating decision on appeal granted entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder with a 70 percent rating, effective April 22, 2024 (date VA received Intent to File (ITF)).

Later in January 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of the January 2025 decision. In May 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued a HLR decision, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior January 2025 decision. It continued the 70 percent rating for acquired psychiatric disorder, but awarded an earlier effective date, now from January 2, 2024 (date VA received ITF).

In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. He listed the January 2025 decision as the rating decision on appeal and disagreed only with the current disability evaluation.

The Board observes that in In Terry v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 1, 12-13 (2023), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) held that in the AMA, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a), a claimant may file more than one administrative review request in response to the same AOJ decision on a claim, provided the administrative review requests are filed within one year of that decision and are not pending concurrently with another administrative review request; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(a)(1) is invalid where inconsistent with 38 U.S.C. § 5104C(a)(1). Based on the above, the Board has construed that the issue on appeal stems from the January 2025 rating decision. The Veteran did not file his VA Form 10182 until May 10, 2025.

Put another way, the Board finds that the issue, as it is characterized on the title page of this decision, is properly before it at this time and ready for adjudication. The Veteran was aware of the May 2025 HLR rating decision, but identified the January 2025 rating decision as the one on appeal in the May 2025 VA Form 10182. It is emphasized that the Veteran still has one year from the May 2025 HLR rating decision to file a supplemental claim or appeal that decision to the Board.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ 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 claim, 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 ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity as a result of a service-connected disability, and separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities and the criteria for specific ratings. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

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 C.F.R. § 4.3.

The evaluation of the same disability under several diagnostic codes, known as pyramiding, must be avoided; however, separate ratings may be assigned for distinct disabilities resulting from the same injury so long as the symptomatology for one condition is not duplicative of or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other condition. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 262 (1994).

While it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran's condition in order to evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, where an increase in the level of a service-connected disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991); Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).

In deciding the Veteran's increased evaluation claim, the Board has considered the determinations in Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999) and Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007), and whether the Veteran is entitled to an increased evaluation for separate periods based on the facts found during the appeal period.

The Board must also assess the competence and credibility of the Veteran and probative value of the evidence of record in its whole. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005), 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2) (Lay evidence is competent if it is provided by a person who has knowledge of the facts or circumstances and conveys matters that can be observed and described by a lay person). In determining whether documents submitted by a veteran are credible, the Board may consider internal consistency, facial plausibility, and consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the claimant. Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995).

Entitlement to an initial rating more than 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder

The Veteran seeks entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder. See May 2025 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement.

By way of background, VA received an ITF on January 2, 2024, followed by a fully developed claim for acquired psychiatric disorder that same day. See January 2024 Intent to File Letter and January 2024 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation).

A January 2024 rating decision deferred the service connection claim for acquired psychiatric disorder. Thereafter, a March 2024 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder.

Then, VA received another ITF on April 22, 2024, followed by a fully developed claim in September 2024 for acquired psychiatric disorder. See April 2025 Intent to File Letter and September 2024 VA 21

Then, VA received another ITF on April 22, 2024, followed by a fully developed claim in September 2024 for acquired psychiatric disorder. See April 2025 Intent to File Letter and September 2024 VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation).

The January 2025 rating decision on appeal granted entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder with an initial 70 percent rating, effective April 22, 2024.

The Veteran filed a request for HLR later in January 2025. See January 2025 VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher-Level Review.

A May 2025 rating decision continued the initial 70 percent rating for acquired psychiatric disorder, but awarded an earlier effective date from January 2, 2024. The Board is permitted to consider the effect of a rating decision issued after the rating decision on appeal as it is not new evidence, but rather, a new legal finding.

The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is evaluated under the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9400-9434, and is subject to the criteria of the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders that provide for the following:

A 50 percent rating is warranted for 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 (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id.

A 70 percent rating is warranted 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 evaluation is warranted 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411.

When determining the appropriate disability evaluation to assign, the Board's primary consideration is a Veteran's symptoms, but it must also make findings as to how those symptoms impact a Veteran's occupational and social impairment. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 118 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Because the use of the term "such as" in the rating criteria demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, the Board need not find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms to award a specific rating. See Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, all ratings in the general rating formula are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology and the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that the veteran's impairment must be "due to" those symptoms, a Veteran may only qualify for a given disability by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118.

Under Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 21-24 (2017), the Board must consider the effects of each of the veteran's mental symptoms on his or her own social and occupational situation and undertake "a holistic analysis."

Based on
2004). Nevertheless, all ratings in the general rating formula are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology and the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that the veteran's impairment must be "due to" those symptoms, a Veteran may only qualify for a given disability by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118.

Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder symptoms have been more characteristic of a disability picture that is contemplated by an initial 70 percent rating rather than that contemplated by a 100 percent rating.

Turning to the evidence, the Board observes that the Veteran has received some VA mental health treatment during the period on appeal. For instance, in March 2024, the Veteran contacted his provider and requested assistance in dealing with depression and increasingly terrible thoughts.

Follow-up VA notes from March 2024 show that the Veteran was seen for an initial evaluation. The Veteran described some symptoms of depression and anxiety, including irritability, apathetic, low motivation, self-isolation, anhedonia, feeling worthless, poor sleep and crying spells. He reported that his symptoms has been going on since 2018 when he left the military. He felt somewhat lonely as he does not have friends and does not have the motivation to socialize. The clinician noted that the Veteran is seeking medication to help with his mood and would like to be motivated to exercise, go out and socialize. The Veteran further reported dealing with depression for "many years" and reached out for help because he was getting worse. The Veteran reported chronic and passive suicidal ideations and had a prior plan to shoot himself, but sold his gun before acting on these thoughts. His mental status was mostly normal and the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) score was 20, which is indicative of severe depressive symptoms. The General Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) score was 15, which is also indicative of severe symptoms. The plan was to schedule the Veteran for additional mental health treatment.

The Veteran had a VA comprehensive assessment consultation in April 2024. He reported that last month he was close to wanting to kill himself and had thoughts to go through with the plan, so he decided to seek assistance instead. The Veteran said the past 6 months were very difficult, but he had been dealing with depression for at least 10 years. He stated that he has trouble sleeping and would randomly feel like crying at work. He also stated that he spend most of his time alone, does not do much besides work, and cannot perform physical activities due to back pain. The Veteran described his medical and family history. He stated that his goals were to feel better, stop feeling depressed, and to do more things while accepting invites from others. The Veteran's mental status was mostly normal and his PHQ-9 score was 15, representing moderately severe symptoms, while his GAD-7 score was 10, for moderate symptoms. His diagnosis was major depressive disorder, recurrent. It was recommended that he attend therapy, but the Veteran preferred to just take medication instead.

VA follow-up notes from later in April 2024 demonstrate that the Veteran was prescribed medication for his acquired psychiatric disorder. He reported improved mood, felt less depressed, and no longer had suicidal thoughts. The Veteran also felt more motivated to do things and had no issues with sleep or appetite. He also denied any suicidal or homicidal ideations.

VA treatment notes from May 2024 show that the Veteran still preferred medication rather than talking to others about his problems. He said he has passive suicidal ideations but denied plan or intent. The mental health status was mostly normal and he denied additional suicidal or homicidal ideations. Follow-up notes from later in May 2025 indicate that the Veteran completed PCMHI treatment. He was currently stable on medication for mood and discharged back to his primary care provider for additional treatment and medication refills.

Along with the Veteran's September 2024 claim, he included a VA mental health disorder DBQ completed by a private psychologist, Dr. S.E. (dated August 2024). Dr. S.E. conducted an in-person examination of the Veteran and diagnosed him with depression, major depressive disorder, and anxiety. It was not possible to differentiate the symptoms due to significant overlap. The Veteran reported that he is not engaged in any romantic relationships because of his symptoms. Physical activities have become challenging and after work he needed to rest because he felt exhausted. The Veteran said that he no longer maintains friendships with acquaintances and lacks close friends. He also felt uncomfortable at family gatherings and had minimal contact with relatives. The Veteran reported that he is employed, but previously struggled to hold a job for more than a few years. It was hard to focus on tasks and he zoned out while re-living old traumas. He avoided interacting with colleagues and was searching for new employment opportunities. The Veteran had poor sleep patterns and often left work early by using sick leave. Dr. S.E. noted that the Veteran had some past appointments with VA providers for mental health issues and is prescribed medication for his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Veteran stated that he uses alcohol and THC gummies several times per week to calm down when feeling anxious. He also reported that post-service, he had impaired concentration, emotional dysregulation, suicidal ideation and self-harm behaviors, neglect of personal hygiene, social withdrawal, avoidance of stressful situations, and difficulty with motivation, communication, sleep, and daily functioning. According to Dr. S.E., the Veteran's symptoms included depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, near continuous panic or depression, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, flattened affect, speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant, difficult in understanding complex commands, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty is establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, suicidal ideation, impaired impulse control, persistent danger of hurting self or others, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, and intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living. It was noted that the Veteran is capable of managing his financial affairs and Dr. S.E. found that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder causes occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

The Veteran received a VA telehealth mental disorders examination in January 2025. He was diagnosed with major depressive disorder (single, moderate), and generalized anxiety disorder. It was not possible to differentiate the symptoms without resorting to speculation due to significant overlap. The Veteran reported that he is currently single and works in operations for a small family business. Post-military, the Veteran reported symptoms of depression and anxiety. He had trouble with sleep, has been irritable, and has less patience with family and friends. He also has been more fatigued during the day and experiences anhedonia. The Veteran said he stopped exercising and lost interest in many activities that he previously enjoyed. According to the examiner, the Veteran's symptoms included depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, and suicidal ideation. The examiner made the following behavioral observations:

[The Veteran] was alert, oriented x 4, groomed adequately, attention, concentration, and memory were within normal limits. Behavior was appropriate, he was polite, pleasant, and cooperative. Responded appropriately to questions. Eye contact was good. Mood was anxious and depressed. Affect was mood congruent.

It was noted that he is capable of managing his financial affairs. The examiner found that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder results in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. The examiner opined that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder is at least as likely as not related to service. The Board observes that this examination resulted in the January 2025 rating decision on appeal that granted entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder with a 70 percent rating, effective April 22, 2024 (which is now effective from January 2, 2024).

When evaluating medical opinions, it is the province of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold the same, and in so doing, to also accept certain medical opinions over others. See Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1999). The Board cannot make its own independent medical determinations, and there must be plausible reasons for favoring one opinion over another. See Colvin
. The Board observes that this examination resulted in the January 2025 rating decision on appeal that granted entitlement to service connection for acquired psychiatric disorder with a 70 percent rating, effective April 22, 2024 (which is now effective from January 2, 2024).

Generally, the degree of probative value which may be attributed to a medical opinion issued by a VA or private treatment provider takes into account such factors as its thoroughness and degree of detail and whether there was review of the Veteran's claims file. Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444 (2000). An evaluation of the probative value of a medical opinion or diagnosis is based on the medical expert's personal examination of the patient, the examiner's knowledge and skill in analyzing the data, and the medical conclusions reached. See Guerrieri v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 467, 470-71 (1993).

When confronted with conflicting medical opinions, the Board must weigh each and favor one competent medical expert over another if its statement of reasons and bases is adequate to support that decision. See Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995). The Board must also determine which of the competing medical opinions is more probative of the medical question at issue. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 300 (2008).

Based on the evidence presented, the Board finds that the Veteran's service-connected acquired psychiatric disorder does not merit an initial rating in excess of 70 percent.

In this regard, the Board notes that the January 2025 VA examination detailed above reveals that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder symptoms included depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, disturbances of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, inability to establish and maintain effective relationships, and suicidal ideation. His VA treatment records noted that the Veteran first described some suicidal intent or plans, but additional treatment shows that these feelings decreased or disappeared with medication. His thought processes were consistently described as normal, but he had lost interest in performing activities and had less patience with family and friends. The Board places substantial probative value on the January 2025 VA examination because the examiner reviewed the entirety of the Veteran's claims file and provided a detailed history of the Veteran's psychiatric treatment and symptomatology.

Throughout the record and relevant time period, the Veteran has consistently neglected personal appearance and hygiene, which is one of the criteria for a 70 percent rating. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the Veteran has difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting, which was recorded during the VA examination detailed above. The Veteran has also experienced other symptoms contemplated by a 70 percent rating, including depressed mood, chronic sleep impairment, difficulty adapting to stressful environments, and suicidal ideation. (The suicidal ideation was judged to be a low acute risk by the clinician.) The Veteran was competent to handle his affairs.

Meanwhile, the Board affords the August 2024 private report from Dr. S.E. minimal probative value. Although Dr. S.E. is a licensed professional, her findings are in stark contrast to the contemporaneous findings of the January 2025 VA examiner and were recorded a few months earlier in August 2024. In other words, there is no indication that the Veteran's symptoms are as severe as indicated by Dr. S.E. As mentioned previously, the Veteran attended VA psychological treatment where his mood, symptoms, feelings, and other pertinent information were regularly recorded and his initial visits are discussed at length above. Furthermore, the Veteran has reported that he prefers to take medication rather than attend mental health therapy. Put another way, the January 2025 VA examination, as well as VA treatment records from throughout the period on appeal, carry more probative value because they are contemporaneous with when the Veteran experienced his symptoms as compared to a report of his medical history after he experienced such symptoms. Therefore, the Board assigns the August 2024 private report less probative weight.

For the reasons stated above and given the symptoms do not typify those such as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting
and other pertinent information were regularly recorded and his initial visits are discussed at length above. Furthermore, the Veteran has reported that he prefers to take medication rather than attend mental health therapy. Put another way, the January 2025 VA examination, as well as VA treatment records from throughout the period on appeal, carry more probative value because they are contemporaneous with when the Veteran experienced his symptoms as compared to a report of his medical history after he experienced such symptoms. Therefore, the Board assigns the August 2024 private report less probative weight.

For the reasons stated above and given the symptoms do not typify those such 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, the Board finds against a rating more than 70 percent. Moreover, both the January 2025 VA and August 2024 report from Dr. S.E. found that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder results in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

The Board finds that the Veteran has been competent and credible when reporting his symptoms. The medical and lay evidence, however, establish that while there occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, total occupational and social impairment has not been shown. Although the Veteran reports some social impairment, problems with sleep disturbance, anxiety, and lack of motivation and mood, such symptoms do not warrant a 100 percent evaluation when all the other manifestations are considered. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436 (2002).

In sum, the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder symptoms are more characteristic of a disability picture that is contemplated by a 70 percent evaluation. Neither the lay nor credible medical evidence shows his symptoms meet the level required for a 100 percent rating during the appeal. Given the totality of the evidence of record, the Board finds the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder symptoms align more with a 70 percent disability rating, as the evidence more so suggests 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.

(Continued on the next page)

Additionally, given the frequency, nature, and duration of the symptoms, based on the above medical evidence of record, the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder symptoms do not result in total occupational and social impairment for the entire appellate period. The record as a whole does not show symptoms typifying total social and occupational impairment. The VA examination shows that the Veteran works, has some interaction with his family and friends, performs other daily activities, and is capable of managing his affairs. The Board cannot grant an increased evaluation of 100 percent for the period on appeal.

In conclusion, the Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the Veteran's appeal for an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Emily Tamlyn

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M. Miller, Counsel

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