POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from April 1988 to July 1990, appeals the agency of original jurisdiction's (AOJ) decision that denied service connection for PTSD and assigned a 50 percent rating for major depressive disorder and nightmare disorder. The Veteran sought service connection for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder and an increased rating for his psychiatric disability. The Board found that while the Veteran's service treatment records did not reflect complaints of PTSD or generalized anxiety disorder, the evidence of record, including two VA psychiatric examinations and a private psychological assessment, supported a diagnosis of PTSD and generalized anxiety disorder. The Board noted the Veteran reported experiencing a personal assault during service in Europe, including retaliation, sleep disturbances, and performance issues, which were corroborated by changes in his service evaluations and eventual separation for unsatisfactory performance. Despite the lack of explicit in-service treatment for these conditions, the Board found the Veteran's reported stressor credible and consistent with the evidence, applying the benefit of the doubt. Service connection for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder was granted. The Board also found that the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms, including PTSD, major depressive disorder, and nightmare disorder, could not be differentiated and warranted a 70 percent rating, reflecting significant occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. The Board determined that while the Veteran experienced significant symptoms, he did not meet the criteria for a 100 percent rating, as he maintained employment and relationships.

Rationale

Evidence is at least evenly balanced regarding relation to in-service personal assault.; Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor.; Medical evidence supports PTSD diagnosis linked to in-service trauma.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26029495
Decision Date: 04/01/26	Archive Date: 04/01/26

DOCKET NO. 250528-548131
DATE: April 1, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with generalized anxiety disorder is granted.

An initial rating of 70 percent, but not higher, for a psychiatric disability, variously diagnosed as major depressive disorder, nightmare disorder, and PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the Veteran's PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder is related to an in-service personal assault.

2. The Veteran's psychiatric disability, variously diagnosed as major depressive disorder, nightmare disorder, and PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder approximates occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas; total occupational and social impairment has not been shown during the appeal period.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. With reasonable doubt resolved in favor of the Veteran, the criteria for service connection for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (f) (5).

2. The criteria for an initial rating of 70 percent, but not higher, for a psychiatric disability, variously diagnosed as major depressive disorder, nightmare disorder, and PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder, are met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from April 1988 to July 1990. 

This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system.  

The rating decision on appeal was issued by the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) in April 2025, granting service connection for major depressive disorder and nightmare disorder, and assigning an initial evaluation of 50 percent from October 3, 2024; and denying entitlement to service connection for PTSD.

The Veteran appealed the April 2025 decision by filing a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) in May 2025.  He elected the Evidence Submission docket.  Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of notification of the April 2025 AOJ decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran [or representative] with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182 (ie., August 26, 2025).  38 C.F.R. § 20.303. 

If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§?20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

The Board notes that under the modernized system, appellees generally have a year to request to change dockets.  See Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024).  Here, the Veteran selected the Evidence Submission docket, but he did not submit evidence in support of his appeal within 90 days following the VA Form 10182.  In December 2025, the Veteran was mailed a docket switch letter pursuant to Williams.  While the Veteran uploaded a Williams waiver to the claims file, in December 2025, the waiver referenced a separately docketed appeal number.  However, the Board finds that since the waiver was uploaded to the claims file after the Board's December 2025 letter, the Veteran intended a general waiver in response to both appeals.  Consequently, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the present case to avoid delaying the benefit to the Veteran.

Service Connection

Generally, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in
 the Board's December 2025 letter, the Veteran intended a general waiver in response to both appeals.  Consequently, the Board will proceed with adjudication of the present case to avoid delaying the benefit to the Veteran.

Service Connection

Generally, service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303.  The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

In addition, there are particular requirements for establishing service connection for PTSD in 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) that are separate from those for establishing service connection generally.  Arzio v. Shinseki, 602 F.3d 1343, 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2010).  Service connection for PTSD generally requires: (1) medical evidence diagnosing the condition in accordance with applicable criteria; (2) a link, established by medical evidence, between current symptoms and an in-service stressor; and (3) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred.  38 C.F.R.§ 3.304 (f).

Service Connection -  PTSD with Generalized Anxiety Disorder

As noted above, in the April 2025 decision on appeal, the AOJ awarded the Veteran service connection for major depressive disorder and nightmare disorder and assigned a 50 percent disability evaluation, effective October 3, 2024.  The Board notes that it is possible to separately grant service connection for both PTSD and another acquired psychiatric disorder.  Amberman v. Shinseki, 570 F.3d 1377, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (considering the possibility that bipolar disorder and PTSD did not constitute the same disability, but rejecting this argument based on the facts of that case).

Here, the evidence of record notes various psychiatric diagnoses, other than major depressive disorder and nightmare disorder, including PTSD, see February 2025 VA psychiatric examination report, and generalized anxiety disorder, see October 2024 private psychological assessment.  Thus, a current disability has been demonstrated.  Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393, 404 (2020), aff'd sub nom. Martinez-Bodon v. McDonough, 28 F.4th 1241, 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (a valid DSM-5 diagnosis is required to warrant compensation for a psychiatric disability).  

During an April 2025 VA psychiatric examination, the Veteran stated that while stationed in Italy, he was retaliated against for refusing to participate in an illegal black market.  He stated that dead animals would be left on his bunk, his food was "messed with," and that he was "kicked down a cliff during a march."  He stated that he began to sleep with a bat under his pillow.  

The Board is mindful that Veterans claiming service connection for PTSD due to personal assault face unique problems documenting their claims.  Since assault is an extremely personal and sensitive issue, many incidents of personal assault are not officially reported, and victims of this type of in-service trauma may find it difficult to produce evidence to support the occurrence of the stressor.  See Proposed Rule, PTSD Based on Personal Assault, 65 Fed. Reg. 61132 (Oct. 16, 2000) ("Many incidents of in-service personal assault are not officially reported, and veterans may find it difficult to produce evidence to prove the occurrence of this type of stressor").  Accordingly, the regulations governing PTSD provide that where a claim is based on an in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the Veteran's service records may corroborate the Veteran's account of the stressor incident.  Examples of such evidence include but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy.  Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources.
 assault are not officially reported, and veterans may find it difficult to produce evidence to prove the occurrence of this type of stressor").  Accordingly, the regulations governing PTSD provide that where a claim is based on an in-service personal assault, evidence from sources other than the Veteran's service records may corroborate the Veteran's account of the stressor incident.  Examples of such evidence include but are not limited to: records from law enforcement authorities, rape crisis centers, mental health counseling centers, hospitals, or physicians; pregnancy tests or tests for sexually transmitted diseases; and statements from family members, roommates, fellow service members, or clergy.  Evidence of behavior changes following the claimed assault is one type of relevant evidence that may be found in these sources. Examples of behavior changes that may constitute credible evidence of the stressor include but are not limited to: a request for a transfer to another military duty assignment; deterioration in work performance; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic attacks, or anxiety without an identifiable cause; or unexplained economic or social behavior changes.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (5).

The Veteran's service treatment records do not reflect treatment for, or complaints of, symptoms associated with PTSD or generalized anxiety disorder.  His service personnel records reflect that the Veteran was promoted in February 1989, but that in June 1990, he was recommended for separation from service under the provisions of Chapter 13, for unsatisfactory performance after counseling.  

Thus, the remaining questions are whether there is a link, established by medical evidence, between the Veteran's PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder and an in-service stressor, and credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor occurred.  

Regarding this, an April 2025 VA psychologist found the Veteran's reported stressor event met Criterion A of the PTSD diagnostic criteria, and that the Veteran's current symptoms or diagnosis is related to personal assault that occurred during service.  The VA psychologist further opined that the claims file supports the contention that an assault/personal trauma occurred.  As rationale, the examiner pointed to changes in performance and performance evaluations during service, to counseling for substandard performance and a Chapter 13 discharge for unsatisfactory performance, with the Veteran receiving promotions to include in 1989, prior to these counseling statements.

While the April 2025 VA psychologist came to a different conclusion regarding whether the Veteran met the full diagnostic criteria to support a diagnosis of PTSD, the Board finds that the February 2025 VA psychiatric examination report provides adequate medical evidence to establish that the Veteran had a diagnosis of PTSD during the appeal period.  The February 2025 VA psychologist indicated the Veteran's stressor was "traumatic experience while on activity duty in Europe," and while the VA psychologist indicated that such was related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, in a separate February 2025 VA medical opinion, the VA psychologist related the Veteran's PTSD to "in-service exposure to severe violence," and opined the Veteran's PTSD is linked to "trauma he endured while in service."

While there is no explanation as to why the February 2025 VA psychologist indicated the Veteran's in-service traumatic experience was related to fear of hostile military or terrorist activity, the Board finds that when read together with the April 2025 VA psychiatric examination, the evidence clearly supports finding the Veteran's current psychiatric symptoms or diagnosis, to include PTSD, was at least likely as not related to an in-service stressor of personal assault.  In Menegassi v. Shinseki, 628 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2011), the Federal Circuit held that under 38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (5), medical opinion evidence may be submitted for use in determining whether a claimed stressor occurred, and such opinion evidence should be weighed along with the other evidence of record in making this determination.  Id. at 1382 & n. 1.  As the February 2025 VA psychologist found the Veteran's had a current diagnosis of PTSD that is linked to trauma he endured while in service, and the April 2025 VA examiner found the Veteran's current symptoms or diagnosis is related to the Veteran's self-reported personal assault that occurred during service, there is some credible supporting evidence for assault under the relaxed PTSD stressor criteria for in-service personal assault.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (5).  Further, the opinions are based on the Veteran's competent and credible reporting and is consistent with the evidence of record and is, therefore, afforded some probative weight.  See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 106 (2012) (the fact that the rationale provided by an examiner "did not explicitly lay out the examiner's journey from the facts to a conclusion," did
 found the Veteran's current symptoms or diagnosis is related to the Veteran's self-reported personal assault that occurred during service, there is some credible supporting evidence for assault under the relaxed PTSD stressor criteria for in-service personal assault.  38 C.F.R. § 3.304 (f) (5).  Further, the opinions are based on the Veteran's competent and credible reporting and is consistent with the evidence of record and is, therefore, afforded some probative weight.  See Monzingo v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 97, 106 (2012) (the fact that the rationale provided by an examiner "did not explicitly lay out the examiner's journey from the facts to a conclusion," did not render the examination inadequate); Acevedo v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 286, 294 (2012) (medical reports must be read as a whole and in the context of the evidence of record).

Considering the above and resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds the evidence is, at the very least, in a state of approximate balance as to whether the Veteran has a psychiatric diagnosis of PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder, that is related to the in-service assault.  Accordingly, service connection for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder is warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.  In reaching this conclusion, the Board has appropriately applied the benefit of the doubt doctrine.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021

Increased Ratings

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 rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service.  The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations.  38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.  The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment.  38 C.F.R. § 4.10.

In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran's disability.  38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991).  If the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher of two ratings, the higher rating will be assigned; otherwise, the lower rating is assigned.  38 C.F.R. § 4.7.  It is not expected that all cases will show all the findings specified; however, findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom and coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all instances.  38 C.F.R. § 4.21.  After consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the Veteran.  38 C.F.R. § 4.3.  The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, and the evaluation of the same manifestation under different diagnoses, are to be avoided.  38 C.F.R. § 4.14.

Where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial evaluation assigned, evaluation of the medical evidence since the grant of service connection and consideration of the appropriateness of a "staged rating" (assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts found) is required.  See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999).  Where an increase in the level of a service-connected disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability.  Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994).  Nevertheless, the Board acknowledges that a claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made.  Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet
 the appropriateness of a "staged rating" (assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts found) is required.  See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999).  Where an increase in the level of a service-connected disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability.  Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994).  Nevertheless, the Board acknowledges that a claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made.  Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007).

Increased Rating - Psychiatric Disability

The Veteran contends an increased rating is warranted for his psychiatric disability.  Procedurally, as noted above, the AOJ granted service connection for major depressive disorder and nightmare disorder in the April 2025 decision on appeal, and assigned a 50 percent disability evaluation, effective October 3, 2024.  The Veteran has now been service-connected for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder.  The Board acknowledges that while the grant of service connection for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder has not been rated in the first instance by the AOJ, the rating for PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder will be combined with the rating for major depressive disorder and nightmare disorder as the Board finds the most probative evidence of record supports finding that the Veteran's symptoms cannot be differentiated.  In arriving at this conclusion, the Board finds that while the private social worker found the Veteran's symptoms can be differentiated, see October 2024 private psychiatric examination report, such finding is outweighed by the findings by two VA psychologists that the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms cannot be differentiated.  See February 2025 and April 2025 VA psychiatric examination reports.  Accordingly, given that all of the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms are considered under the same diagnostic criteria, they will be rated together herein. 

The Veteran's psychiatric disorder has been evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula).  38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434.

A 50 percent evaluation 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 (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.

A 70 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; 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 worklike setting); or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.

A 100 percent rating is assigned when symptoms 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; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name cause total occupational and social impairment.

Under the 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 Board must determine whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages.  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).

Turning to the relevant evidence of record during the appeal period, a private psychological assessment conducted by M.M.P., LCSW, BCD, in October 2024, records that the Veteran has been married twice, and that his current wife describes the Veteran as "grumpy" and "does not sleep well."
 unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages.  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).

Turning to the relevant evidence of record during the appeal period, a private psychological assessment conducted by M.M.P., LCSW, BCD, in October 2024, records that the Veteran has been married twice, and that his current wife describes the Veteran as "grumpy" and "does not sleep well."  The Veteran reported that he has two or three children.  He reported that he has been employed as a general manager for a landscaping company since 2016.  The clinician noted the Veteran's report that he is suspicious, doesn't trust other's motives, is on edge, hypervigilant, and feels a sense of hopelessness.  The clinician indicated the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms also included reports of being anger prone; experiencing excessive worry, anxiety, intrusive ideation, nightmares, and panic; and engaging in compulsive behavior including repeated checking and counting.  The clinician indicated the Veteran experiences significant persecutory ideation, distrust of others, and is viewed by others as overbearing.  Examination revealed the Veteran was attentive, engaged, and oriented to person, place, time, and situation.  His appearance was appropriate, and he showed good insight.  The clinician indicated the Veteran's concentration, memory, and motivation were within normal limits.

An October 2024 private psychiatric examination report, also conducted by M.M.P., records the Veteran's report that his marriage is "good," whereas the Veteran's spouse described the Veteran as being "grumpy," and "doesn't sleep well."  The clinician indicated the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms included depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; chronic sleep impairment; flattened effect; impaired judgment; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances including work or work-like setting; and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.  Occupationally, the clinician indicated the Veteran works primarily in a vehicle completing estimates and overseeing work being done by employees, and that he spends the rest of the day completing administrative work.  He reported that he supervises 12-15 people.  The clinician opined the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family situations, judgment, thinking and/or mood.

The Veteran was afforded a VA psychiatric examination in February 2025, wherein the examiner noted the Veteran has symptoms of irritable behavior and angry outbursts and exaggerated startle response.  The examiner further indicated symptoms of depressed mood; anxiety; and disturbances of motivation and mood.  The examiner noted the Veteran has a work history in the field of car sales for 20 years, and as a general manager for a landscaping company.  The examiner opined the Veteran had 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 medication.

An April 2025 VA psychiatric examination report records the Veteran's report that he has been married since 2020, and is his second marriage.  He reported he lives with his wife and daughter, and that "life is good."  He reported having an "okay" relationship with his older children, and a "decent" relationship with the rest of his family and friends.  Occupationally, the Veteran reported that he has been employed on a full-time basis as a general manager for a landscaping company for the past 8 years, with previous work experience in the automobile industry.  He reported that he has been fired in the past due to bouts of depression that led to missed or late workdays, and poor work performance.  However, he denied a history of occupational problems involving poor performance or workplace relations.  The examiner indicated the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms included depressed mood; anxiety; chronic sleep impairment; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.  The Veteran denied self-harm or suicide attempt.  Examination revealed the Veteran's appearance was appropriate.  His mood was somber.  The examiner indicated that the Veteran denied and there was no evidence of active psychosis or imminent risk of suicidal and/or homicidal ideation, or audio and/or visual hallucinations.  The examiner opined the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care, and conversation.

Based on the evidence overall, the Board finds that an initial 70 percent
's psychiatric symptoms included depressed mood; anxiety; chronic sleep impairment; and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.  The Veteran denied self-harm or suicide attempt.  Examination revealed the Veteran's appearance was appropriate.  His mood was somber.  The examiner indicated that the Veteran denied and there was no evidence of active psychosis or imminent risk of suicidal and/or homicidal ideation, or audio and/or visual hallucinations.  The examiner opined the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care, and conversation.

Based on the evidence overall, the Board finds that an initial 70 percent rating for the Veteran's psychiatric disability is warranted.  The Board finds the Veteran's psychiatric disability variously diagnosed as major depressive disorder, nightmare disorder, and PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder, approximates occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.  As noted, the medical and lay evidence supports that the Veteran exhibited severe psychiatric symptoms, to include irritable behavior and angry outbursts; difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances including work or work-like setting; inability to establish and maintain effective relationships; as well as symptoms of compulsive behavior including repeated checking and counting; significant persecutory ideation; and feelings of hopelessness.  

The Board acknowledges that the February 2025 VA psychologist opined Veteran had occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms, which is consistent with a 10 percent rating; and that the April 2025 VA psychologist opined the Veteran had occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, which is consistent with a 30 percent rating.  However, an examiner's characterization of the level of impairment in terms of the legal criteria is not dispositive.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 (a) (delegating the Secretary's authority "to make findings and decisions... as to the entitlement of claimants to benefits" to, inter alia, VA "adjudicative personnel"); 38 C.F.R. § 4.2 ("It is the responsibility of the rating specialist to interpret reports of examination... so that the current rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present.").  

Here, in light of the noted psychiatric symptoms overall, and when affording the Veteran reasonable doubt, the Board finds his psychiatric disability, variously diagnosed as major depressive disorder, nightmare disorder, and PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder, approximates occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.  Thus, an initial 70 percent rating is warranted throughout the entire appeal period.

While an increased initial rating to 70 percent is supported for the Veteran's psychiatric disability, an even further increase to 100 percent for total occupational and social impairment is not warranted.  A disability that justifies a 100 percent rating is so severely disabling that some of the examples of symptoms include posing a persistent threat of danger to self or others, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, not knowing one's own name or the names of close relatives, disorientation and persistent delusions or hallucinations.  The Board notes the Veteran has not exhibited such symptoms.  Moreover, he works full-time as a general manager for a landscaping company, is married, and has maintained relationships with his children, family, and friends.  As such, the criteria for a 100 percent psychiatric rating have not been met.

In sum, the Board finds that for the entire period on appeal, an initial 70 percent rating is warranted for the Veteran's psychiatric disability, variously diagnosed as major depressive disorder, nightmare disorder, and PTSD with generalized anxiety disorder.  However, the evidence is persuasively against a rating in excess of 70 percent.  The benefit of the doubt has been resolved in the Veteran's favor and a further increased rating aside from that granted herein is not warranted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. 

The Board has considered the Veteran's claim and decided entitlement based on the evidence.  The Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record with respect to his claim, to include entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), or entitlement to an extraschedular disability rating.  Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record).

 

 

T. Berry

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Smith, Associate Counsel
 on the evidence.  The Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record with respect to his claim, to include entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU), or entitlement to an extraschedular disability rating.  Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record).

 

 

T. Berry

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Smith, Associate 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.