DEPRESSIVE DISORDER

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Army from July 1987 to April 1991 and January 1992 to September 1999, appeals the denial of an increased disability rating for his service-connected depressive disorder with anxious distress. The veteran sought a 100 percent rating, asserting that his private physician, Dr. John T. Wheeler, found him totally impaired. The Board reviewed evidence of record up to the April 2025 Higher-Level Review decision. The veteran submitted a DBQ from Dr. Wheeler, who diagnosed depressive disorder and opined total social and occupational impairment, but provided no rationale, reviewed only the "Decision Letter," and was located approximately 250 miles away from the veteran. The Board assigned this opinion little probative weight due to its lack of rationale, failure to review relevant evidence, and inconsistency with the veteran's demonstrated functioning. In contrast, a December 2024 VA examination found the veteran's symptoms approximated a 70 percent rating, noting his continued employment at USPS for four years, marriage since 2015, social interactions with family and friends, and participation in activities like going to the gym and bowling. The VA examiner concluded the veteran's symptoms caused mild or transient impairment, decreasing work efficiency only during significant stress. The Board found the veteran's sustained employment and social functioning weighed against total impairment, assigning greater weight to the VA examination and treatment records. Therefore, the Board denied the increased rating, finding the criteria for a 100 percent rating were not met.

Rationale

Veteran's sustained employment at USPS weighs against total impairment.; Private opinion lacked rationale and review of relevant evidence.; Veteran's social functioning, including relationships and activities, weighs against total impairment.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26036678
Decision Date: 04/20/26	Archive Date: 04/20/26

DOCKET NO. 250516-547219
DATE: April 20, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for depressive disorder with anxious distress is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's depressive disorder with anxious distress is manifested by symptoms which produce total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for depressive disorder with anxious distress are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9435.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1987 to April 1991, and from January 1992 to September 1999.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 Higher-Level Review rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which increased the initial rating for unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress from 50 to 70 percent, effective September 3, 2024. 

In May 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request:  Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), on which he identified the April 2025 AOJ decision, the issue as entitlement to a 100 percent rating for depressive disorder, and elected the Direct Review docket.   

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2024 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review in the April 2025 AOJ decision.  38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the December 2024 decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review the Board did not consider it in its decision.  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. 

1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 70 percent for service-connected depressive disorder.

The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a 100 percent rating for his service-connected depressive disorder because "[o]n 10-28-24 my private doctor stated that I met the criteria for 100% due to Depressive Disorder."   See May 2025 VA Form 10182.  

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.

Under 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 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). 

The issue in this appeal is whether the Veteran's associated symptoms caused the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent.  The Veteran is currently in receipt of a 70 percent rating from September 3, 2024, the effective date of the award of service
  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). 

The issue in this appeal is whether the Veteran's associated symptoms caused the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent.  The Veteran is currently in receipt of a 70 percent rating from September 3, 2024, the effective date of the award of service connection.   

The Board concludes that the Veteran's symptoms did not cause the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent at any point during the period under review.  The Veteran's symptoms more closely approximated the symptoms associated with a 70 percent rating, and resulted in a level of impairment that most closely approximated the level of impairment associated with a 70 percent rating. 

A noncompensable rating is assigned when a mental condition has been formally diagnosed, but symptoms are not severe enough to either require continuous medication, or to interfere with occupational and social functioning.

A 10 percent rating is assigned when mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of occasional stress, or symptoms controlled by medication cause occupational and social impairment.

A 30 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, or mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events), cause 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).

A 50 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such 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; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships cause occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.

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 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; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name.

The VA clinical evidence of record reflects that the Veteran reports that has been employed at the United States Postal-Service (USPS) for several years, throughout the entirety of the period under review.  In addition, he has been married to his spouse since November 2015.  A July 2024 VA treatment record reflects that the Veteran reported that he works and goes to the gym three times per week.  

In November 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-526EZ, Application for Disability Compensation and Related Compensation Benefits, on which he sought service connection for depressive disorder, which he claimed was secondary to a service-connected back disability.  

In support of his claim, the Veteran submitted a disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) he had solicited from John T. Wheeler, Ph.D.  On the DBQ, completed on October 28, 2024, Dr. Wheeler indicated that the Veteran was not his regular patient.  He claimed, however, that he had examined the Veteran in person, although the Veteran's address is approximate 250 miles away from the address provided by Dr. Wheeler.  In an attached letter, Dr. Wheeler indicated that he had conducted a "Clinical interview" of the Veteran.  Dr. Wheeler diagnosed the Veteran as having depressive disorder and opined that it produced total social and occupational impairment, although Dr. Wheeler gave no rationale for that opinion.  If he conducted a psychological examination
 submitted a disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) he had solicited from John T. Wheeler, Ph.D.  On the DBQ, completed on October 28, 2024, Dr. Wheeler indicated that the Veteran was not his regular patient.  He claimed, however, that he had examined the Veteran in person, although the Veteran's address is approximate 250 miles away from the address provided by Dr. Wheeler.  In an attached letter, Dr. Wheeler indicated that he had conducted a "Clinical interview" of the Veteran.  Dr. Wheeler diagnosed the Veteran as having depressive disorder and opined that it produced total social and occupational impairment, although Dr. Wheeler gave no rationale for that opinion.  If he conducted a psychological examination, the results were not included in the report.  The only records reviewed by Dr. Wheeler was "Decision Letter."  Dr. Wheeler made no reference to the Veteran's employment.  He noted the Veteran was married, but provided no additional information supporting his conclusion that the Veteran was totally socially impaired.  

Dr. Wheeler claimed that the Veteran's symptoms were depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, impairment of short and long term memory, impaired judgment, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, disturbances in motivation and mood, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting, impaired impulse control, persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, and disorientation to time and place.  

In the October 2024 report attached to the mental disorders DBQ submitted in November 2024, the examiner wrote that the Veteran suffers from depression, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, and chronic pain, and as a result, he is irritable, fatigued, and experiences hallucinations.  He documented the Veteran's report that the Veteran has lost interest in previously pleasurable activities and long- and short-term memory are impaired.  The Veteran has memory loss for names and recent events.  Judgment is impaired.  Thought processes are disorganized.  Motivation is disturbed.  He has difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances.  Impulse control is impaired.  Grossly inappropriate behavior occurs and he neglects appearance and hygiene.  He reported that he becomes disoriented to place.  

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for mental disorders in December 2024.  After examining the Veteran and reviewing the record, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran as having unspecified depressive disorder with anxious distress.  She concluded that the Veteran's disability produced 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.  During the examination the Veteran claimed that his relationship with his spouse of nine years was strained due to financial strain and his irritability.  He had a good relationship with his oldest son but a poor relationship with his younger son.  He has periodic social interactions with friends and his mother and sister.  He attends church virtually.  He enjoyed bowling weekly and watching sports.  He completed his bachelor's degree in business in 2017 after leaving service.  He was currently employed as an expeditor and clerk at USPS and has worked with them for four years.  He denied any problems with absenteeism or tardiness.  As for relevant mental health history, he denied any present or previous history of visits with mental health professionals, psychiatric diagnoses, hospitalizations, or use of psychotropic medications.  He reported onset of depression due to managing chronic pain.  He also noted a depressed mood, feelings of isolation, loneliness, and irritability as a result.  He reported difficulty falling and staying asleep, difficulty concentrating and making decisions.  He also reported anxiety, fatigue, and poor motivation.  The examiner marked his symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, flattened affect, and disturbances of motivation and mood.  The Veteran denied suicidal and homicidal ideation.  

After reviewing the record in its entirety, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's disability produces total social and occupational impairment to warrant a higher 100 percent rating.  

In this regard, the Veteran has maintained employment with the USPS for several years.  At the December 2024 VA examination, he specifically denied any problems with absenteeism or tardiness.  Such sustained employment weighs against a finding of total impairment.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 (100 percent rating requires total occupational impairment).  The Board has considered the October 2024 DBQ from Dr. Wheeler, who found that the Veteran's psychiatric disability produced total social and occupational impairment, but assigns it little probative weight.  Again, Dr. Wheeler did not review the relevant evidence of record, nor did he provide a rationale for that conclusion.  This is particularly significant given the evidence of record reflecting that the Veteran
 this regard, the Veteran has maintained employment with the USPS for several years.  At the December 2024 VA examination, he specifically denied any problems with absenteeism or tardiness.  Such sustained employment weighs against a finding of total impairment.  See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 (100 percent rating requires total occupational impairment).  The Board has considered the October 2024 DBQ from Dr. Wheeler, who found that the Veteran's psychiatric disability produced total social and occupational impairment, but assigns it little probative weight.  Again, Dr. Wheeler did not review the relevant evidence of record, nor did he provide a rationale for that conclusion.  This is particularly significant given the evidence of record reflecting that the Veteran has retained both employment and a marriage throughout the period on appeal.  

Similarly, the evidence is persuasively against a finding of total social impairment.  Again, the record reflects that the Veteran has maintained relationships with family members, including his spouse and children, and continues to engage in social and recreational activities such as interacting with friends, going to the gym three times a week, and maintaining his hobby of weekly bowling.  Although the record reflects some problems in relationships and symptoms such as irritability and isolation, these manifestations are contemplated by the currently assigned 70 percent rating and do not rise to the level of total social impairment.  

The Board has considered the October 2024 DBQ completed by Dr. Wheeler which noted symptoms such as hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, impaired impulse control, and disorientation.  However, for the reasons discussed above, the Board assigns this evidence little probative weight.  Again, Dr. Wheeler did not provide an explanation for those symptoms, he indicated that the Veteran was not a regular patient, he did not review the Veteran's medical records, and his report contains no indication that he conducted psychological testing.  Further, the severity of symptoms identified is inconsistent with the Veteran's demonstrated level of functioning during the appeal period.  For example, the presence of persistent hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, and impaired impulse control is not supported by contemporaneous treatment records or the Veteran's ability to maintain stable, long-term employment without reported disciplinary issues.  On the contrary, the Veteran reported that he did not have any problems with attendance or tardiness at work.  

In contrast, the December 2024 VA examination is more probative, as it was based on comprehensive review of the Veteran's history and included detailed discussion of his occupational, social and functional status.  The examiner's findings are consistent with contemporaneous treatment records and the Veteran's own reports of functioning, including his continued employment, social interactions, and daily activities.  Accordingly, the Board assigns greater probative weight to the VA examination and treatment records than to the DBQ submitted by the Veteran. 

The Board acknowledges the Veteran symptoms, including depression, anxiety, sleep impairment, disturbances of mood and motivation, and difficulty with concentration and relationships.  However, under the General Rating Formula, the presence of severe symptoms alone does not mandate a 100 percent rating.  Rather, the dispositive question is whether those symptoms result in total occupational and social impairment.  Here, the overall disability picture, including the Veteran's retained occupational and social functioning, does not approximate the level of total social and occupational impairment.  

Accordingly, the criteria for an initial 100 percent rating are not met or more nearly approximated at any point during the appeal period.  38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7, 4.130.

 

 

K. Conner

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Rasul, H.

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.