POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

A. ODYA-WEIS · 2026 · Case ID: A26039896

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from January 2012 to August 2017, appeals the denial of an increased rating for his service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Veteran was initially granted service connection for PTSD at 30 percent in December 2019. Following a claim for an increased rating and submission of a private psychological examination in October 2021, the VA Regional Office increased the rating to 70 percent effective October 26, 2021. The Veteran appealed this decision, seeking an increased rating from the original effective date of March 30, 2020. The Board reviewed the August 2020 VA initial PTSD examination, the October 2021 private PTSD examination, and the March 2022 VA review PTSD examination. The private examination noted severe PTSD with deficiencies in most areas of occupational and social functioning, including suicidal ideation, panic attacks, memory impairment, and difficulty maintaining relationships. The VA examinations also noted significant symptoms, including suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, sleep impairment, and social difficulties. The Board found that the Veteran's symptoms, particularly suicidal ideation and impaired impulse control, met the criteria for a 70 percent rating, citing case law that emphasizes the severity and impact of these symptoms on occupational and social functioning. The Board concluded that the evidence supported a 70 percent rating for PTSD, but not total disability, as the Veteran was employed and did not demonstrate gross impairment in thought processes or persistent danger to self or others. Service connection for TDIU, SMC, or housebound status was not inferred or granted. The Board granted the increased rating to 70 percent, effective from March 30, 2020.

Rationale

Weight of evidence demonstrates 70% rating warranted.; Symptoms approximate criteria for 70% rating.; Suicidal ideation, impaired impulse control, and social impairment noted.

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Diagnostic Code

9413

Docket No.

211105-195815

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039896
Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26

DOCKET NO. 211105-195815
DATE: April 29, 2026

ISSUE

Entitlement to an increased initial rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD).

ORDER

Entitlement to an increased initial rating of 70 percent, but no higher, from March 30, 2020, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

For the period on appeal, the Veteran's PTSD has been manifested by occupational and social impairment in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to symptoms of near-continuous depression affecting his ability to function independently, appropriately, and effectively, suicidal ideation, impaired impulse control, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances including work or a work-like setting, and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an increased initial rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for service-connected PTSD, effective from March 30, 2020 have been met or approximated. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from January 2012 to August 2017.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an October 2020 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Detroit, Michigan, which is the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in this appeal. The Veteran was notified of that decision on November 6, 2020.

In the November 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. On June 18, 2025, the Veteran withdrew the hearing request. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the November 2020 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal of the hearing request, through September 16, 2025. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to receipt of the withdrawal, or (2) more than 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), 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[s], considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

When a Veteran files a claim for an increased rating, he or she is presumed to be seeking the maximum benefit under any applicable theory, including TDIU. See Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447, 453-54 (2009). In light of this principle, entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) has been found to be an inferable issue anytime a veteran is requesting increased benefits. Akles v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 118 (1991). The Veteran's records indicate he is currently employed, and he has not contended that his service-connected disabilities prevent or inhibit opportunities for gainful employment. The Board therefore finds a claim for TDIU is not inferred from the record. There is no further lay or medical evidence the Veteran is housebound in fact, requires aid and attendance, or that his disabilities result in loss of use of a limb or blindness. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(s), (l), (k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a), (b), (i). As such, the Board will not consider SMC at this time.

Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants
prevent or inhibit opportunities for gainful employment. The Board therefore finds a claim for TDIU is not inferred from the record. There is no further lay or medical evidence the Veteran is housebound in fact, requires aid and attendance, or that his disabilities result in loss of use of a limb or blindness. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(s), (l), (k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a), (b), (i). As such, the Board will not consider SMC at this time.

Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA)

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a).

The Veteran in this case has not referred to any deficiencies in either the duties to notify or assist; therefore, the Board may proceed to the merits of the claim. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015, cert. denied, U.S.C. Oct. 3, 2016) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board....to search the record and address procedural arguments when the [appellant] fails to raise them before the Board"); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to an appellant's failure to raise a duty to assist argument before the Board).

The Board has reviewed all of the evidence in the Veteran's claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on his behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000).

Increased Schedular Ratings - General

Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) at 38 C.F.R. § Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1.

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

In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (2013); Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary importance. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). That said, higher evaluations may be assigned for separate periods based on the facts found during the appeal period. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). This practice is known as staged ratings. 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). The determination of whether an increased disability rating is warranted is to be based on a review of the entire evidence of record and the application of all pertinent regulations. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991).

The Board considers not only
based on the facts found during the appeal period. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). This practice is known as staged ratings. 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). The determination of whether an increased disability rating is warranted is to be based on a review of the entire evidence of record and the application of all pertinent regulations. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991).

The Board considers not only the criteria of the currently assigned diagnostic codes, but also the criteria of other potentially applicable diagnostic codes. In general, all disabilities, including those arising from a single disease entity, are rated separately, and all disability ratings are then combined in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 4.25. However, the evaluation of the same "disability" or the same "manifestations" under various diagnoses is not allowed. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. A claimant may not be compensated twice for the same symptomatology as "such a result would overcompensate the claimant for the actual impairment of his [or her] earning capacity." See 38 U.S.C. § 1155; Brady v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 203, 206 (1993). This would result in pyramiding, contrary to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. However, if a veteran has separate and distinct manifestations attributable to the same injury, they should be compensated under different diagnostic codes. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259 (1994); Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225, 230 (1993).

38 U.S.C. § 1154(a) requires that the VA give "due consideration" to "all pertinent medical and lay evidence" in evaluating a claim to disability benefits. Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). When analyzing lay evidence, the Board should assess the evidence and determine whether the disability claimed is of the type for which lay evidence is competent. See Davidson, 581 F.3d at 1313; Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011).

If the evidence for and against a claim is in approximate balance, the claim will be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A claim will be denied only if the balance of the evidence is persuasively against the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

Legal Standards -PTSD

The Veteran's PTSD is rated under Diagnostic Code 9413, unspecified anxiety disorder. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. PTSD is rated using the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula). The Veteran was initially service connected for a PTSD in a December 2019 rating decision with a 30 percent evaluation effective from December 27, 2019, the day after the Veteran left active service.

Under the General Formula, a 30 percent rating is assigned 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, PTSD, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). Id.

A 50 percent rating is assigned for occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as flattened affect, circumstantial
2019 rating decision with a 30 percent evaluation effective from December 27, 2019, the day after the Veteran left active service.

A 50 percent rating is assigned 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, impaired judgment, impaired abstract thinking, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id.

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

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

Use of the term "such as" in the criteria for a rating under § 4.130 indicates that the list of symptoms that follows is "non-exhaustive," meaning that VA is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some of the enumerated symptoms to assign to a rating. See Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 115 (Fed. Cir. 2013); see also Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). However, because "[a]ll nonzero disability levels [in § 4.130] are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology," and the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that "the veteran's impairment must be 'due to' those symptoms," "a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration." Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 116-17. "[I]n the context of a 70 [percent] rating, § 4.130 requires not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas." Id. at 117. Thus, assessing whether a 70 percent evaluation is warranted requires a two-part analysis: "The... regulation contemplates [: (1) ] initial assessment of the symptoms displayed by the veteran, and if they are of the kind enumerated in the regulation[; and (2) ] an assessment of whether those symptoms result in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas." Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118.

When evaluating a mental disorder, the rating agency shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based upon all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment, rather than solely upon the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. Id.

Therefore, although the Veteran's symptoms are the "primary consideration" in assigning a disability evaluation under § 4.130, determining whether the Veteran is entitled to
duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based upon all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment, rather than solely upon the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. When evaluating the level of disability from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment, but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. Id.

Therefore, although the Veteran's symptoms are the "primary consideration" in assigning a disability evaluation under § 4.130, determining whether the Veteran is entitled to a 70 percent disability evaluation "also requires an ultimate factual conclusion as to the veteran's level of impairment in 'most areas." Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118-19. Thus, it is not sufficient for the Board to simply match the symptoms listed in the rating criteria against those exhibited by a Veteran. Rather, "VA must engage in a holistic analysis" of the severity, frequency, and duration of the signs and symptoms of the veteran's mental disorder, determine the level of occupational and social impairment caused by those signs and symptoms, and assign an evaluation that most nearly approximates that level of occupational and social impairment. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017).

Evidence and Analysis -PTSD

The Veteran is service connected for PTSD since a November 2020 rating decision that granted a 30 percent rating effective from March 30, 2020, the date of the supplemental claim filed by the Veteran. Following that rating decision, the Veteran filed a November 2020 10182 notice of disagreement, appealing that November 2020 rating decision and requesting a Board hearing.

In an April 2022 rating decision following a February 2022 claim for an increased rating, the AOJ increased the Veteran's PTSD rating to 70 percent, effective from October 26, 2021, the date of a private PTSD examination by a private psychologist submitted by the Veteran. On June 18, 2025, the Veteran cancelled his scheduled Board hearing and requested adjudication of his appeal. With the cancelled hearing, the Veteran was allowed to submit evidence in support of his appeal in the 90-day period following June 18, 2025, which ends on September 16, 2025. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b).

To that end, the Veteran's representative re-submitted multiple examinations, to include the August 2020 VA initial PTSD examination, an October 2021 private PTSD examination, an April 2022 VA review PTSD examination, all within the allowable June-September 2025 window, and an updated argument in support of the Veteran's claim.

VA provided an initial PTSD examination in August 2020. The VA psychologist examiner immediately noted on the examination form the Veteran's history of suicidal ideation, to include as recent as October 2019. PTSD was diagnosed in accordance with the DSM-5 and the Veteran's occupational and social impairment as 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. The examiner noted the Veteran had not wanted to be known as "one of those crazy Vets," but because of increasing symptom severity, he had been seeking VA mental health services. The examiner noted the previously confirmed stressors from the Veteran's service in southwest Asia. Symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, chronic sleep impairment, and difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. This examiner considered the Veteran's previous diagnoses of depression and anxiety to be subsumed under the current PTSD diagnosis.

The Veteran received a private psychological examination in October 2021 from Dr. E.T., a board-certified psychologist in private practice. This examination was resubmitted to the claims file in July 2025 within the allowable evidence window following the canceled hearing. This examiner noted a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic, delayed, severe, and considered occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and/or mood. Symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, chronic sleep impairment, impairment of short and long term memory, flattened affect, disturbance of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting, suicidal ideation, and impaired impulse control. The examiner noted the Veteran has frequent bouts of irritability and outbursts of anger, feeling alienated and separate from
. This examiner noted a diagnosis of PTSD, chronic, delayed, severe, and considered occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, and/or mood. Symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, chronic sleep impairment, impairment of short and long term memory, flattened affect, disturbance of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting, suicidal ideation, and impaired impulse control. The examiner noted the Veteran has frequent bouts of irritability and outbursts of anger, feeling alienated and separate from others. His marriage ended in 2018. The Veteran disclosed he has had suicidal thoughts since leaving the military in August 2017, and that he has certain blanks in his memory due to his traumas. The examiner described the Veteran as hypervigilant with periods of violence and impaired concentration. He prefers his back to the wall, keeps multiple weapons, has a security system, and exhibits an exaggerated startle response.

VA provided a review PTSD examination in March 2022, which was re-submitted to the claims file in July 2025 within the allowable evidence window following the canceled hearing. This VA psychologist examiner continued the previous PTSD diagnosis and also noted alcohol use disorder in sustained remission along with cannabis use disorder in remission. The examiner described the Veteran's occupational and social impairment as with reduced reliability and productivity. The examiner noted the Veteran was currently employed at the time of the examination and not on any prescribed psychotropic medications. Symptoms noted include depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss, impairment of short and long term memory, flattened affect, disturbance of motivation and mood, difficulty in establishing effective work and social relationships, difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting, difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships, and neglect of personal appearance and hygiene.

Entitlement to an increased initial rating of 70 percent, but no higher, effective from March 30, 2020, for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted.

Based on the medical record, the Board finds that the weight of the evidence demonstrates that a rating of 70 percent is warranted for the Veteran's PTSD, effective for the entire period on appeal, from the original date of service connection of March 30, 2020. Here, the Board notes the record of severity of the Veteran's disability most closely approximates the criteria for a 70 percent disability evaluation from the original effective date of service connection. During this period the Veteran generally complained of depression, anxiety, nightmares, intrusive thoughts, memory issues, concentration problems, irritability, and isolationist tendencies, all of which he is competent to report. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Other symptoms in this period include multiple active and passive suicidal ideations, diminished interest, fatigue, and feelings of worthlessness, along with difficulty in maintaining work, school, and family relationships. The Veteran's symptoms have been somewhat consistent in this period, though worsening slowly over time, and they have resulted in an overall disability picture that more nearly approximates deficiencies in most areas. The Veteran has been on and off psychiatric medications and other psychiatric-related therapies throughout the appeal period, and the types and dosages have been adjusted, indicating the medication and therapies are only partially working.

The Board notes especially the Court's language of Bankhead v. Shulkin: "the language of the regulation indicates that the presence of suicidal ideation, alone, that is, a veteran's thoughts of his or her own death or thoughts of engaging in suicide-related behavior, may cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas." 29 Vet. App. 10, 21 (2017). Bankhead also clearly expressed that suicidal ideation in the 70 percent criteria includes a "broad continuum that encompasses both passive and active suicidal ideation." Id. At 21.

In light of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's PTSD symptoms have resulted in an overall disability picture that more nearly approximates occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; frequent panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability); some 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. The Board notes variation among the treatment notes and the examination
suicidal ideation." Id. At 21.

The Board notes that some of the multiple examiners provided detailed symptomatology that it characterizes as occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity for this period, but also that his symptoms over time since the original date of claim more closely aligns with the criteria of a 70 percent rating, vice a 30 percent or 50 percent rating for this period. However, other medical examiners provided assessments that were more indicative of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, to include the more recent treatment sessions. A Veteran need not exhibit "all, most, or even some" of the symptoms enumerated in the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders to warrant the assignment of a higher rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). Rather, the criteria ("such symptoms as") provides guidance as to the severity of symptoms contemplated for each rating in addition to permitting consideration of other symptoms particular to the Veteran. Id.

A rating in excess of 70 percent is not warranted at any time covered in this period. The evidence of record generally shows that the Veteran appeared oriented and understood the consequences of his actions. He has had employment difficulties directly due to his PTSD. The Veteran was married up until recently but is now divorced, and he lives alone. The Veteran preferred isolation and exhibited significant avoidance behavior. Anxiety and panic attacks are noted in this period and are weekly or more than weekly in regularity. Multiple medical providers noted suicidal ideation in the Veteran, commencing with the initial VA psychiatric examination in November 2017, three months after leaving active duty, and the Veteran been treated because of active and passive suicidal ideation.

The Veteran's PTSD symptoms do not more nearly approximate 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 or minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives and own occupation or name. For these reasons, and in consideration of all the evidence of record, the Board finds that total occupational and social impairment due to trauma symptoms is not demonstrated during this period.

Accordingly, the evidence shows that the overall disability picture for this period persuasively weighs in favor for the criteria for the assignment of an increased evaluation of 70 percent, but no higher, for the Veteran's service-connected PTSD during the period on appeal. Bankhead, 29 Vet. App. at 22; Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 442; Vasquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 116-17; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

All potentially applicable diagnostic codes have been considered, and there is no basis to assign an evaluation in excess of the ratings assigned herein for the appeal period. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 593 (1991). Therefore, for the reasons stated above, the Board finds that a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for the period on appeal for PTSD is warranted. See Hart, 21 Vet. App. 505.

Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369 (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).

A. Odya-Weis

Acting Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Setter, Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect

Analyze in VA Law Explorer