EYE IMPAIRMENT OF MUSCLES OF

JONATHAN B. KRAMER · 2026 · Case ID: A26038422

MIXED

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from August 2017 to August 2021, appeals the denial of service connection for vitreous floaters and seeks an increased rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board found that the Veteran's claim for vitreous floaters was granted, resolving reasonable doubt in his favor. The Veteran reported experiencing floaters during service, and while the initial VA examination was deemed inadequate due to an inaccurate history and irrelevant characterization of the condition, the Board found the evidence in approximate balance. The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his psychiatric disorder was denied for all periods on appeal. While the Veteran reported increased symptoms, including passive suicidal ideation and difficulty with social and occupational functioning, the Board found the evidence did not support a rating higher than the 70 percent already granted by the agency of original jurisdiction. The Board noted the absence of private treatment records and that the Veteran denied seeking treatment for his psychiatric condition. The Board also addressed the effective date for the 70 percent rating, finding it appropriate from June 7, 2023, the date of the supplemental claim submission, as the evidence did not support an earlier date.

Rationale

AOJ conceded current disability and in-service occurrence.; VA examination deemed inadequate due to inaccurate history and irrelevant characterization.; Evidence found in approximate balance, warranting benefit of the doubt.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

260204-638810

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038422
Decision Date: 04/24/26 Archive Date: 04/24/26

DOCKET NO. 260204-638810
DATE: April 24, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for vitreous floaters is granted.

Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent prior to June 7, 2023, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter, for an acquired psychiatric disorder, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his vitreous floaters are related to service.

2. Prior to June 7, 2023, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms were productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, or mood. From June 7, 2023, the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms were productive of total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for vitreous floaters are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

2. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 50 percent prior to June 7, 2023, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter, for an acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107, 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9433.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from August 2017 to August 2021.

These appeals are being processed under the modernized review system, commonly referred to as the "AMA," as established by the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017. 115 Pub. L. No. 55, 131 Stat. 1105.

These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a February 2025 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office, an agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). The February 2025 rating decision was issued in response to the Veteran's request for Higher Level Review (HLR) of an October 2023 rating decision.

The Veteran initiated this appeal to the Board by submitting a February 2026 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) and elected the Direct Review docket. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Further, the Veteran's representative specified waiver of any additional time to modify the chosen Board appeal lane, citing Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). Based on the Veteran's election of the Direct Review docket, the Board may only consider the evidence of record that the AOJ was permitted to consider at the time it issued the rating decision on appeal (i.e., the evidence of record at the time the AOJ issued the October 2023 rating decision). 38 C.F.R. § 20.301.

If evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered such evidence in this decision. The appellant may file a supplemental claim 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 along with this decision.

Service Connection

Entitlement to service connection on a direct basis requires (1) evidence of current nonservice-connected disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018).

A lay person is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by their senses; however, usually, they are not competent to prove a matter requiring medical expertise. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d
; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current nonservice-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018).

After the evidence has been assembled, it is the Board's responsibility to evaluate the entire record. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall resolve all reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. This standard does not require the evidence to be exactly equal; rather, it includes "scenarios where the evidence is not in equipoise but nevertheless is in approximate balance. Put differently, if the positive and negative evidence is in approximate balance (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), the claimant receives the benefit of the doubt." Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

1. Entitlement to service connection for vitreous floaters.

The Veteran seeks service connection for vitreous floaters which he contends developed due to stress in service. See November 2021 VA Form 21-526EZ.

Preliminarily, in the February 2025 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ favorably found that the Veteran had been diagnosed with a current disability of vitreous floaters, that there was a qualifying event, injury or disease onset in service, and conceded Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA). See 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Turning to the evidence, service treatment records (STRs) reflect a normal eye examination at enlistment although the Veteran reported he had worn glasses. See June 2017 Report of Medical History. During the Veteran's separation examination, he reported an eye disorder or trouble. He explained as follows: "have many eye floaters developed around a year ago (March 2020)." See May 2021 Report of Medical History. Under the clinician comments, they indicated such report/condition was "ND" or not disabling and determined there were no conditions disqualifying from separation from service. See May 2021 Report of Medical Examination.

The Veteran attended a VA examination in January 2022, with resultant diagnoses of "left vitreous floaters," (pg. 2) and "vitreous floaters of both eyes" (pg. 11). No other eye conditions were diagnosed. The Veteran had uncorrected vision of 20/20 in both eyes. Under evidence comments, it was noted that "Veteran entered the service 06/27/2021 and stated on medical exam that he had previously worn glasses. No eye or vision problems noted in the Veteran's medical records." In a corresponding medical opinion, a negative nexus opinion was offered as follows:

Vitreous floaters are microscopic collagen fibers within the vitreous that tend to clump and cast shadows on the retina, appearing as floaters to the patient. The most common cause of vitreous floaters in ophthalmology is posterior vitreous detachment (PVD), a separation of the posterior hyaloid face from the retina (Bergstrom R, Czyz CN. Vitreous Floaters. 2021 Jul 19. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan-. PMID: 29262091.) The veteran was evaluated today with a dilated fundus examination, and no retinal holes, breaks, or tears were present. In this case, the floaters are an incidental finding, and nothing serious. He has good vision in both eyes with no ocular pathology. It is less likely than not that this condition was caused by military service. No ocular incidents were noted after a thorough review of the veteran's records.

In February 2026, the Veteran's representative submitted argument with the VA
, Czyz CN. Vitreous Floaters. 2021 Jul 19. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2021 Jan-. PMID: 29262091.) The veteran was evaluated today with a dilated fundus examination, and no retinal holes, breaks, or tears were present. In this case, the floaters are an incidental finding, and nothing serious. He has good vision in both eyes with no ocular pathology. It is less likely than not that this condition was caused by military service. No ocular incidents were noted after a thorough review of the veteran's records.

In February 2026, the Veteran's representative submitted argument with the VA Form 10182 asserting that the January 2022 VA examination was inadequate in relying on an inaccurate premise that no ocular incidents were noted in the Veteran's records and in failing to explain what was meant by finding the Veteran's floaters were an incidental finding. The representative asserted that service connection was warranted on the basis that the Veteran's vitreous floaters began during active service and have persisted to the present day.

The Board has reviewed the evidence of record in conjunction with the applicable laws and regulations and finds that, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, service connection for vitreous floaters is warranted.

As noted previously, the AOJ has conceded the first two elements of direct service connection - a current disability and an in service occurrence. The remaining question before the Board is that of medical nexus.

The only medical opinion of record addressing the etiology of the Veteran's vitreous floaters is the January 2022 VA examination. Unfortunately, the Board finds the VA examination report and corresponding medical opinion problematic in several regards. First, the report indicated that the Veteran's entrance to service was June 2021, which was in fact when his separation examination took place. At that time, the Veteran reported experiencing floaters in his eyes over the past year while in service. This history was not addressed in the VA medical opinion. Based on the foregoing, the Board agrees that the VA medical opinion relied on an inaccurate history. Accordingly, it assigns no probative weight to this opinion. See Reonal v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 458, 461 (1993) (an opinion based upon an inaccurate factual premise has no probative value). Further, the Board finds the characterization of the Veteran's vitreous floaters as an incidental finding and "nothing serious" is irrelevant as a current disability has already been conceded by the AOJ.

The general principle of service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) "connotes many factors but basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces."

Here, the evidence shows that the Veteran complained of floaters in his eyes at separation, reporting he had experienced such symptoms over the past year. The Board finds such symptoms are capable of lay observation. Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377. Within a year of separation, in January 2022, the Veteran attended a VA examination and was diagnosed with vitreous floaters. There is no evidence of intervening event or incident, nor evidence of record that the vitreous floaters diagnosed during the January 2022 VA examination are distinct from the floaters the Veteran reported experiencing in June 2021.

The Board finds that the foregoing renders the evidence at least in approximate balance. As such, reasonable doubt must be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Accordingly, service connection for vitreous floaters is granted.

Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his or her ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his or her symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

If two ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where the schedular criteria do not provide for a noncompensable rating, such a rating is assigned when the requirements for a compensable rating are not met
her symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities. See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.

A disability rating may require re-evaluation in accordance with changes in condition. Thus, it is essential that the disability be considered in the context of the entire recorded history when determining the level of current impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. See also Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991).

Nevertheless, where a veteran is appealing the rating for an already established service-connected condition, his present level of disability is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994).

When an appeal is based on the assignment of an initial rating for a disability, following an initial award of service connection for this disability, the rule articulated in Francisco does not apply. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). The rating must be based on the overall recorded history of a disability, giving equal weight to past and present medical reports. Id. Staged ratings are appropriate for an increased-rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

Increased Ratings for Psychiatric Disorders

Psychiatric disabilities are generally evaluated under a general rating formula for mental disorders codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Under the general rating formula, a 30 percent rating is warranted for 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 conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, and mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events).

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 effective work and social relationships.

A 70 percent rating is prescribed when there is evidence of 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); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id.

A 100 percent rating is prescribed when there is evidence of 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 as to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id.

The list of symptoms under the rating criteria are meant to be examples of symptoms that would warrant the rating, but are not meant to be exhaustive, and the Board need not find all or even some of the symptoms to award a specific rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442-3 (2002). However, a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under §4.130 by demonstrating the symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration, and that such symptoms have resulted in the type
of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation as to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id.

The list of symptoms under the rating criteria are meant to be examples of symptoms that would warrant the rating, but are not meant to be exhaustive, and the Board need not find all or even some of the symptoms to award a specific rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442-3 (2002). However, a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under §4.130 by demonstrating the symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration, and that such symptoms have resulted in the type of occupational and social impairment associated with that percentage. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 117-18 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

2. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent prior to June 7, 2023, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter, for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

In his February 2026 VA Form 10182, the Veteran seeks increased rating for his acquired psychiatric disorder "for all periods on appeal." In argument accompanying the VA Form 10182, the Veteran's representative contends that the Veteran should be entitled to a 70 percent rating from August 14, 2021. See February 2026 Argument Submission.

By way of background, a June 2022 rating decision granted service connection for persistent depressive disorder with anxious distress and assigned a 30 percent evaluation effective August 14, 2021. The Veteran requested Higher Level Review (HLR) of this decision resulting in a September 2022 rating decision increasing the Veteran's assigned evaluation from 30 percent to 50 percent effective August 14, 2021. Submission of a June 2023 supplemental claim resulted in an October 2023 rating decision increasing the Veteran's disability rating to 70 percent effective August 25, 2023. An October 2024 HLR request culminated in the February 2025 rating decision on appeal, assigning an earlier effective date of June 7, 2023, for the Veteran's increased 70 percent rating.

Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran has continuously pursued his appeal of a higher initial rating of his acquired psychiatric disorder, to include staged ratings. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c), (h). Accordingly, the evidence to be considered is that covering the entirety of the period on review beginning August 14, 2021, and is not limited to the present level of the Veteran's disability. See Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126.

Turning to the evidence, during the period on review, the Veteran was afforded two VA examinations. During the first examination, in December 2021, the Veteran endorsed symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment and disturbances of motivation and mood. He reported living with his father working part time for a furniture company of a family friend in an office position, and that he had not been doing much with his friends since discharge. He reported a lack of interest in activities he used to enjoy such as sports and hunting and that since getting out of the Marines he did not have much of a taste for alcohol. Behavioral observations noted the Veteran appeared cooperative and friendly, appropriately dressed, had good social skills, was oriented to all spheres, and had a mildly dysphoric mood. He did not appear to be very goal directed, presenting as re-adjusting from his recent discharge and being stressed by his duties in service. The VA examination report differentiated between the Veteran's symptoms during and after active service under the Remarks section as follows:

The veteran presents as an individual who was significantly stressed by supervisory duties while in the marines of being involved in passing out ammunition for various weapons and managing other young, enlisted men in this process. He apparently was constantly fearful that someone would make a mistake, and he would be blamed for it. He related that he felt constant stress on a daily basis in his job which over time appears to have produced some depressive symptoms and basically wore him down emotionally to the point where he is presenting with signs of mild depression at this time characterized by a general lack of interest in pursuing any goals for himself. He appears to basically be recuperating from the stress of being in the marines and in a position of responsibility that he was uncomfortable with. He would benefit from seeking therapy to elevate his mood and encouragement in getting his life moving forward again. He does not present with any signs of any severe emotional disorganization at this time and his depression which apparently had been going on for some time appears primarily related to job stress.

The VA examination report diagnosed a mild depressive disorder with anxiety
he felt constant stress on a daily basis in his job which over time appears to have produced some depressive symptoms and basically wore him down emotionally to the point where he is presenting with signs of mild depression at this time characterized by a general lack of interest in pursuing any goals for himself. He appears to basically be recuperating from the stress of being in the marines and in a position of responsibility that he was uncomfortable with. He would benefit from seeking therapy to elevate his mood and encouragement in getting his life moving forward again. He does not present with any signs of any severe emotional disorganization at this time and his depression which apparently had been going on for some time appears primarily related to job stress.

The VA examination report diagnosed a mild depressive disorder with anxiety characterized as resulting in 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.

In a July 2022 VA Form 20-0996 Request for Higher Level Review seeking a higher disability rating for his acquired psychiatric disorder, the Veteran claimed he had no motivation, had little sleep, that it was hard to get work done and that he had severe anxiety.

The Veteran attended a second in person VA examination in August 2023, endorsing the same symptoms as the previous examination, as well as difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting, as well as suicidal ideation. The Veteran reported an increase in depressive symptoms, feeling like he had lost his purpose, losing friends in the military to suicide, not wanting to get out of bed in the morning, losing his job, getting angry quickly (providing an example of yelling at his mother earlier that day), sleeping about three to four hours a night and increasing his alcohol intake in May of that year to about 20-30 12 ounce cans of beer a week and binge drinking a few times a week. Behavioral observations during the August 2023 VA examination noted the Veteran arrived on time and appropriately dressed, with appropriate eye contact and an anxious affect, remaining tense, shaking his leg and fidgeting during the examination. He was cooperative and coherent, oriented to all spheres with speech within normal limits.

Based on the Veteran's reports of an increase in depressive symptoms, the August 2023 VA examination report diagnosed a progression of his diagnosis to a current diagnosis of Persistent Depressive Disorder, with major persistent major depressive episodes, current severity moderate, with related anxious distress, and a secondary diagnosis of insomnia. Further, the examiner diagnosed an Alcohol Use Disorder based on the Veteran's reports of problematic alcohol use as a maladaptive means of coping with emotional distress. Passive suicidal ideation was reported during the examination, although the Veteran denied any plans or desire to harm himself, remaining future-oriented. The examination report identified occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgement, thinking and/or mood.

The Veteran's representative submitted argument in February 2026 with the VA Form 10182 asserting the December 2021 VA examination documented symptoms consistent with an increased 70 percent rating, to include reports of "significant anxiety which affected his ability to function," "constantly worrying" and having "problems with anxiety," being "significantly stressed" and feeling "tense all the time."

The Board has reviewed the evidence of record in conjunction with the applicable laws and regulations and finds that increased ratings for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder are not warranted at any point during the period on appeal.

Initially, the Board notes that there are no private treatment or VA treatment notes of record. The Veteran has denied seeking any treatment for his acquired psychiatric disorder. Therefore, the only medical evidence of record consists of the December 2021 and August 2023 VA examinations.

Turning back to the December 2021 VA examination report, the Veteran was diagnosed with mild depressive disorder with anxiety. No symptoms of 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); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships was endorsed. The Veteran was living with his father and working at the time of the examination. He reportedly "did not have much of a taste for alcohol" at the time. While symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood were present, such symptoms did not rise to the level of panic attacks or near-continuous panic or depression as these symptoms were not endorsed in the VA examination report. Further, the Veteran's depressive disorder was characterized as mild at the time of the examination
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); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships was endorsed. The Veteran was living with his father and working at the time of the examination. He reportedly "did not have much of a taste for alcohol" at the time. While symptoms of anxiety and depressed mood were present, such symptoms did not rise to the level of panic attacks or near-continuous panic or depression as these symptoms were not endorsed in the VA examination report. Further, the Veteran's depressive disorder was characterized as mild at the time of the examination.

As previously noted, the December 2021 VA examination report differentiated between the Veteran's in service symptoms versus his current symptoms explaining in the Remarks section that in service, the Veteran "related that he felt constant stress on a daily basis in his job which over time appears to have produced some depressive symptoms and basically wore him down emotionally to the point where he is presenting with signs of mild depression at this time characterized by a general lack of interest in pursuing any goals for himself." The VA examination report suggested an improvement in symptoms since leaving service concluding that the Veteran "appears to basically be recuperating from the stress of being in the marines and in a position of responsibility that he was uncomfortable with."

The level of psychiatric impairment identified by the December 2021 VA examination was characterized as "occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational task only during periods of significant stress." This level of impairment is commensurate with a 10 percent rating. A higher 50 percent initial rating was assigned by the AOJ, however, based on the examiner's inclusion of the symptom of disturbances of motivation and mood.

The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding a disability rating in excess of 50 percent is warranted for the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder prior to June 7, 2023.

Critically, during the August 2023 VA examination, the Veteran reported an "increase" in symptoms, as well as additional symptoms of passive suicidal ideation, difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances including work or a work likes setting and difficulty establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. The Veteran also reported becoming angry quickly and provided an example of yelling at his mom earlier in the day because she asked him a few questions. He had been fired from his job as an inventory manager for a furniture company, a job that he held for six months, one week prior to the VA examination, reportedly due to too many absences and an inability to focus. The VA examiner determined that the Veteran's increase in depressive symptoms and reports of insomnia warranted a new diagnosis of Persistent Depressive Disorder with persistent major depressive episodes, current severity moderate, with related anxious distress and secondary diagnosis of insomnia. These diagnoses were described as a progression of the previous diagnosis from the December 2021 VA examination. Further, the Veteran reported alcohol abuse starting several months before in May 2023, which was characterized by the VA examiner as a maladaptive means of coping with emotional distress warranting a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder. Such symptoms were not present at the time of the December 2021 VA examination.

According to the Veteran's own report, he experienced an increase in depressive symptoms as well as additional psychiatric symptoms in August 2023. Based on the foregoing, the VA examiner determined new psychiatric diagnoses were warranted and a higher level of social and occupational impairment was identified. Both the symptoms endorsed by the August 2023 VA examiner, as well as the level of impairment identified, are commensurate with the assigned 70 percent rating. The AOJ assigned an increased evaluation of 70 percent effective June 7, 2023, the date of the Veteran submitted supplemental claim.

Generally, the effective date for an award based on an initial claim or a supplemental claim for compensation shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall be no earlier than the date of receipt of the application. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The statutory provision is implemented by regulation which provides that the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

The effective date of an award of compensation based on a claim for increase is fixed in accordance with the facts found but shall be no earlier than the date of receipt of the application. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The statutory provision is implemented by regulation, which provides that the effective date for an evaluation and award of compensation based on a claim for increase will be the date of receipt of
.C. § 5110(a). The statutory provision is implemented by regulation which provides that the effective date of an evaluation and award of compensation based on an initial claim or supplemental claim will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400.

However, when the evidence demonstrates that a factually ascertainable increase in disability occurred within the one-year period preceding the date of receipt of a claim for increased compensation, the effective date of the award shall be the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred if application is received within one year from that date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2).

For the reasons outlined above, a higher level of disability commensurate with a 70 percent rating for an acquired psychiatric disorder is not demonstrated until the August 2023 VA examination. Thus, the date that entitlement arose and the date that it is factually ascertainable an increase in disability occurred is one in the same - August 27, 2023, the date of the second VA examination. The AOJ granted an earlier effective date of June 7, 2023, the date the Veteran's supplemental claim was submitted. The evidence weighs against finding an effective date prior to June 7, 2023, for the increased 70 percent rating.

Because the Veteran generally asserted entitlement to increased disability ratings for all periods on appeal in his VA Form 10182, the Board also addresses whether the evidence supports a rating in excess of 70 percent from June 7, 2023. Here, the record reflect does not reflect evidence of total occupational and social impairment, nor symptoms consistent with: 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 as to time or place; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name, at any point during the period on appeal. While the Veteran reported passive suicidal ideation at the time of the August 2023 VA examination, the suicide risk was deemed "low acute" by the examiner. Thus, the Veteran was not found to be in persistent danger of hurting himself. Further, the behavioral observations of the examiner during the August 2023 VA examination noted the Veteran was oriented to all spheres, cooperative and coherent. This weighs against finding symptoms of disorientation, grossly inappropriate behavior or gross impairment in thought process or communication consistent with a higher rating.

Based on the foregoing, persistent symptoms supporting a higher rating, or symptoms of a similar nature to those supporting a higher rating are not reflected during the period on review. See Lynch, 21 F.4th at 781-82. Therefore, the Veteran's claim for entitlement to an increased disability rating in excess of 50 prior to June 7, 2023, and in excess of 70 percent thereafter, for his acquired psychiatric disorder, is denied.

Finally, the Board also considers whether an inferred claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) under Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009) has been raised by the record. In the February 2025 rating decision on appeal, a claim for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was denied. In the February 2026 VA Form 10182, the Veteran's representative specified appeal of only two issues adjudicated in the February 2025 rating decision, denial of a TDIU not being one of them. Thus, TDIU consideration under Rice is not applicable for this claim.

JONATHAN B. KRAMER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board Long, Kindra F.

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