GENERALIZED ANXIETY DISORDER

C.A. SKOW · 2026 · Case ID: A26040472

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from January 2006 to January 2011, appeals the denial of an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). The veteran was initially granted service connection for GAD with a 30 percent rating, which was later increased to 50 percent through a Higher-Level Review. The Board reviewed the evidence of record from the time of the initial rating decision, including a September 2023 VA examination report and the veteran's lay statement. The VA examination noted symptoms such as depressed mood, anxiety, and chronic sleep impairment, consistent with a 30 or 50 percent rating. The veteran also reported social support and maintained employment. The Board found that while the veteran experienced irritability, the evidence did not demonstrate deficiencies in most areas of occupational and social functioning, nor did it reflect total impairment. The Board concluded that the veteran's symptoms, both listed and unlisted, did not more closely approximate the criteria for a 70 percent rating. The Board assigned greater probative value to the competent medical evidence, finding the totality of the evidence weighed against a higher rating. Therefore, the appeal for an increased rating for GAD was denied.

Rationale

Symptoms do not more closely approximate criteria for 70% rating.; Evidence does not show inability to establish and maintain effective relationships causing deficiencies in most areas.; Veteran's symptoms do not reflect total occupational or social impairment.

Service Branch

MARINE CORPS

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

250910-586159

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040472
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250910-586159
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

An initial rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

During the rating review period, the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's GAD symptoms did not more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected GAD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9400.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from January 2006 to January 2011. The Veteran has had a 80 percent combined VA disability rating effective from June 15, 2023. See Rating Decision - Codesheet (February 2026).

The rating decision on appeal was issued in December 2023 and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In December 2024, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0996, Decision Review Request: Higher-Level Review (HLR), and requested review of a December 2023 decision. In March 2025, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the HLR decision on appeal, which considered the evidence of record at the time of the prior December 2023 decision.

In the September 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the December 2023 AOJ decision on appeal, which was subject to a March 2025 HLR, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or his representative, with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801.

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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The Veteran has not raised any other issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist with regard to the issue decided herein. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (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 veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

Evaluations

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, 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
Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, 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. When reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in the veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of any disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Although the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings, the Board is to consider the veteran's medical history in determining the applicability of a higher rating for the entire period in which the appeal has been pending. Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999).

Where entitlement to compensation has been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Where an appeal is based on an initial rating for a disability, however, evidence contemporaneous with the claim and the initial rating decision are most probative of the degree of disability existing when the initial rating was assigned and should be the evidence "used to decide whether an original rating on appeal was erroneous." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). In either case, if later evidence indicates that the degree of disability increased or decreased following the assignment of the initial rating, staged ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time. Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126; Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (noting that staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct time periods in which a disability exhibits symptoms that warrant different ratings). When adjudicating an increased rating claim, the relevant time period for consideration is the time period one year before the claim was filed. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 509.

Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 50 percent for service-connected GAD.

A December 2023 rating decision granted service connection for GAD and assigned a 30 percent rating, effective June 13, 2023. In December 2024, the Veteran submitted an HLR request, seeking a higher initial rating. A March 2024 HLR rating decision granted an increase from 30 to 50 percent initial rating for GAD. This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with that decision.

The rating review period for the claim for increase starts on June 13, 2023 - the date of the grant of service connection for GAD; and ends on December 12, 2023, the date of the rating decision on appeal. See VA Form 10182 (September 2025). The AMA automatically applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after February 19, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(a)(1).

The Veteran contends that a higher initial evaluation is warranted for his GAD. See VA Form 10182 (September 2025). He has not detailed his contentions.

The Board concludes that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's GAD more closely approximated occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9400.

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).

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

During the relevant review period, the evidence does not more nearly reflect occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas due to the severity, frequency, and duration of psychiatric symptoms. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9400.

A VA-obtained examination report and the Veteran's lay statement show that his GAD was manifested by symptoms associated with a 50- or lower-percent rating (e.g., depressed mood, anxiety, chronic sleep impairment). He further had symptoms that are not listed with a specific rating, such as irritability.

The Board finds the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's unlisted symptom more closely approximates the symptoms contemplated by a 30 or 50 percent rating, which are less severe, less frequent, and shorter in duration than those contemplated by a 70 percent rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126. In this regard, the record reflects that the Veteran was not suicidal, homicidal, psychotic, manic, or panicked. Further, symptom of irritability is akin to anxiety or suspiciousness, which are contemplated by the 30 percent rating. Moreover, as discussed further below, the evidence of record more nearly approximates a 50 percent rating based, in part, because
rating, such as irritability.

A September 2023 VA-obtained examination report reflects symptoms of depressed mood; anxiety; and chronic sleep impairment. At the examination, the Veteran reported being married since 2010 (for 13 years at that time) and having a child. See C&P Exam at 4 (September 2023). He reported social support from his wife, child and friends. Id. He reported having worked in information technology and engineering, currently working full-time in engineering and having earned a doctorate degree in "'education'." Behavioral observation included that the Veteran was well groomed with congruent affect; was cordial and cooperative with normal eye contact and motor activity; his speech was normal; mood was "'tired, a little anxious'"; and he had normal thought process and content. He denied suicidal or homicidal ideations. Id. at 9. He denied any history of mental health treatment following discharge. Ensuing examination and interview with the Veteran, the clinician found the following best summarized the Veteran's level of occupational and social impairment with regards to his acquired psychiatric disorder: Occupational and social impairment due to mild or transient symptoms which decrease work ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of significant stress, or symptoms controlled by medication.

During the relevant rating review period, the medical and lay evidence, overall, does not more nearly approximate the level of impairment associated with a 70 percent or higher rating. While the record indicates that the Veteran has irritability, the majority of the evidence does not show it is frequent, long lasting, or severe enough to result in deficiencies in most areas. In this regard, the record, for the most part, reflects that the Veteran maintains relationships with his wife and child, as well as friends, and continues to work at his job. Moreover, although the Veteran may believe that his psychiatric symptoms warrant a higher rating, the totality of the lay and medical evidence, for this time period, more closely approximates the 50 percent rating. The examination report, taken together with the Veteran's reports at the examination and review of the Veteran's file, indicate that the Veteran was cooperative, was appropriately dressed, had normal speech, had good hygiene, and had normal attention. Additionally, the Veteran denied any mental health treatment after discharge from service. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's unlisted symptom, however, this symptom, as noted above, is contemplated by the lower 30 percent rating or by the currently assigned 50 percent rating and is not shown by either the lay or medical evidence to more nearly reflect the criteria for a 70 percent or higher disability rating.

Further, the record, in its totality, does not more nearly reflect total occupational or social impairment. For instance, the Veteran did not have intermittent illogical, obscure or irrelevant speech as a result of his GAD symptomology during this period. His examination report shows the Veteran's speech to be normal. There is also no evidence of the Veteran exhibiting spatial disorientation, or a neglect of his personal appearance and hygiene. While the Veteran reported excessive worry that was difficult to control that resulted in muscle tension, irritability and sleep difficulty, the evidence shows that he was cooperative with normal speech and eye contact, as well as normal thought process and content. The Veteran's September 2023 VA-obtained evaluation, for example, reported his thought process to be normal. The evidence additionally does not demonstrate that the Veteran reported any disorientation to time or place. Furthermore, the evidence, overall, does not suggest that the Veteran had experienced any prolonged short - long term memory issues. In this regard, the Veteran's memory had been found to be intact as noted shortly prior to the appeal period and no impairment was noted during the appeal period. See e.g. Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility at 7 (September 2023). In addition, he never reported any obsessive thoughts that interfered with his routine activities. There is no indication that the Veteran experienced obsessive thoughts which
and content. The Veteran's September 2023 VA-obtained evaluation, for example, reported his thought process to be normal. The evidence additionally does not demonstrate that the Veteran reported any disorientation to time or place. Furthermore, the evidence, overall, does not suggest that the Veteran had experienced any prolonged short - long term memory issues. In this regard, the Veteran's memory had been found to be intact as noted shortly prior to the appeal period and no impairment was noted during the appeal period. See e.g. Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility at 7 (September 2023). In addition, he never reported any obsessive thoughts that interfered with his routine activities. There is no indication that the Veteran experienced obsessive thoughts which affected his employability or social interactions. In this regard, the record overall shows a positive relationship with his child, wife and friends. Thus, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships as a result of his PTSD.

The Board accepts that the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms. However, whether a disability meets the schedular criteria for the assignment of a higher evaluation is a factual determination by the Board based on the Veteran's complaints coupled with the medical evidence. Both the lay and medical evidence are probative in this case. Although the Veteran may believe that he meets the criteria for the next higher disability rating, his complaints along with the medical findings do not meet the schedular requirements for a 70 percent rating, as explained and discussed above.

The Board assigns greater probative value to the competent, credible medical evidence, to include the treatment records and examination report, as they were prepared by skilled, neutral medical professionals after evaluating the Veteran and/or review of the record.

In summary, the severity, frequency, and/or duration of symptoms, individually or collectively, shown by the record do not more nearly reflect the type contemplated by the schedular criteria for an evaluation in excess of 50 percent. Staging of the GAD rating is not warranted as the factual findings show no distinct period where the disability exhibited symptoms that would warrant a higher evaluation than assigned. See Hart, 21 Vet. App. 505; Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126.

On balance, the weight of the most persuasive evidence is against the claim.

Accordingly, the claim is denied. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

C.A. SKOW

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board E. M. Pesin, Counsel

The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer