POSTTRAUMATIC STRESS DISORDER (PTSD)

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Marine Corps from February 1966 to February 1969, including combat service in Vietnam and at Camp Lejeune, appealed the denial of TDIU and a higher rating than 50 percent for his service-connected psychiatric disorder (PTSD). The Board vacated its prior decision regarding the effective date of the 70 percent PTSD rating due to scrivener's error, clarifying that the effective date was not an issue before the Board. The Board reiterated its grant of a 70 percent rating for PTSD, finding the veteran's symptoms, including suicidal ideation, memory issues, and daily flashbacks, met the criteria for occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. However, the Board denied a rating in excess of 70 percent, finding the evidence did not support total occupational and social impairment, as persistent delusions, hallucinations, or gross impairment in thought processes were absent. The Board noted the veteran was not on medication or in therapy. The Board found the evidence persuasively against a 100 percent rating, despite the veteran's reported symptoms and a private psychologist's assessment, as the criteria for total impairment were not met.

Rationale

Symptoms more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas.; Evidence persuasively against total occupational and social impairment.; Criteria for 100 percent rating are overwhelmingly absent.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040588
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250621-556538
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER TO VACATE

The February 12, 2026, Board decision is vacated to the extent it addressed an effective date when it awarded a 70 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with unspecified neurocognitive disorder, specifically citing a period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, twice, on pages 3 and 7, an effective date issue was not before the Board and the Board lacked jurisdiction to address an effective date.

ORDER

A rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. In the June 2025 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement, the Veteran requested review of the March 2025 rating decision under the Board's Hearing docket as to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD and as entitlement to the award of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU); at the Board hearing, the Veteran's attorney identified the two issues on appeal were a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD and TDIU.

2. The Board did not have jurisdiction to address the issue of effective date of the award of a 70 percent rating for PTSD, specifically to the extent it referenced a period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, on pages 3 and 7.

3. The reference to a period of November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, on pages 3 and 7 was scrivener's error.

4. The severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas than reduced reliability and productivity, and no higher; the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms do not more closely approximate total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for vacating the February 2026 Board decision to the extent it addressed the effective date of the award of a 70 percent rating, specifically to the extent it referenced a period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, on pages 3 and 7, have been met.  38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.104, 20.202, 20.1000.

2. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD are not met at any time during the period on appeal.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1154(a), 1155, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, DC 9411.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from February 1966 to February 1969, including combat service in the Republic of Vietnam, as well as at Camp Lejeune.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2025 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied TDIU and a higher rating than 50 percent for the service-connected psychiatric disorder.  

In June 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) framework, electing the hearing docket by the Board, disagreeing with the March 2025 rating decision as to TDIU and the 50 percent rating for psychiatric disability, seeking a higher rating.  

In October 2025, the Veteran and his wife testified at a hearing that was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  

In February 2026, the Board issued a decision granting a 70 percent rating for PTSD, denying a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD and granting entitlement to the award of a TDIU.  

The RO issued a decision in February 2026 implementing the Board's February 2026 decision, granting a 70 percent rating for PTSD, as well as TDIU, effective from March 25, 2023, date of the intent to file, which corresponds to the effective date of service connection for his psychiatric disability.  

Because the Board's determination as to the Veteran's TDIU claim was fully favorable, the Board will not again address this issue in this
 held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.  

In February 2026, the Board issued a decision granting a 70 percent rating for PTSD, denying a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD and granting entitlement to the award of a TDIU.  

The RO issued a decision in February 2026 implementing the Board's February 2026 decision, granting a 70 percent rating for PTSD, as well as TDIU, effective from March 25, 2023, date of the intent to file, which corresponds to the effective date of service connection for his psychiatric disability.  

Because the Board's determination as to the Veteran's TDIU claim was fully favorable, the Board will not again address this issue in this decision.  Murphy v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 510, 514-15 (2014).

1. The February 12, 2026, Board decision is vacated to the extent it addressed the effective date of the award of its grant of a 70 percent rating for PTSD, specifically to the extent it referenced a period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, on pages 3 and 7.

In order to appeal an issue adjudicated in a rating decision to the Board, a notice of disagreement must be filed.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.202.  The Board shall decide all questions pertaining to its jurisdictional authority to review a particular case and, in cases which it has determined it does not have jurisdiction, the Board may issue a dismissal.  See 38 C.F.R. § 20.204.  The Board may vacate an appellate decision at any time upon request of a party, or on the Board's own motion, when a party has been denied due process of law.  38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000.  

The Board notes that the appeal in this case was filed by the Veteran as to the issues of a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD and TDIU relevant to a March 2025 rating decision.  See June 2025 VA form 10182.  Indeed, the Veteran's attorney specifically clarified that the issues included entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD and TDIU at the Board hearing before the undersigned and no other issues.  The testimony and argument at the hearing related to a rating in excess of 50 percent for PTSD and TDIU.  As such, any reference by the Board to the effective date of service connection was a due process error.

To the extent that the Board February 2026 decision as to the grant of 70 percent for PTSD can be read to address an effective date for its grant of the 70 percent rating, citing a period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, two times, on pages 3 and 7, the Board did not have jurisdiction to assign an effective date.  

The Board acknowledges that the February 2026 decision references the period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, twice, on page 3 and again on page 7.  This reference by the Board was due to scrivener's error.  In reaching this determination, the Board points out that the reference to the effective date of the award, which would be prior to the effective date of service connection for the Veteran's psychiatric disability, was not contextually related to the appeal, was not asserted and the issue was not adjudicated in the first instance by the RO.  

In light of the foregoing, the Board's February 12, 2026, decision as to the award of a 70 percent rating in the February 2026 Board decision is vacated to the extent that it referenced a period from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, for the effective date of the award of a 70 percent rating in the appeal.  

The sentence on page 3 that reads, "A 70 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024," should read, "A 70 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted."

On page 7, the sentence that reads, "The benefit of the doubt doctrine applies as to the grant of 70 percent from November 25, 2015, and not just from August 12, 2024," should read, "The benefit of the doubt doctrine applies as to the grant of 70 percent."  

The erroneous inclusion of the reference to the period November 25, 2015, to August 12, 
, "A 70 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted from November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024," should read, "A 70 percent rating for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is granted."

On page 7, the sentence that reads, "The benefit of the doubt doctrine applies as to the grant of 70 percent from November 25, 2015, and not just from August 12, 2024," should read, "The benefit of the doubt doctrine applies as to the grant of 70 percent."  

The erroneous inclusion of the reference to the period November 25, 2015, to August 12, 2024, when discussing the award of 70 percent for PTSD, causing confusion, amounts to a scrivener's error.  See Withers v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 139, 144 n.1 (2018).  

The Board notes that scrivener's error, or clerical, error is "[a]n error resulting from a minor mistake or inadvertence and not from judicial reasoning or determination; esp[ecially], a drafter's or typist's technical error that can be rectified without serious doubt about the correct reading." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY (12th ed. 2024).  The scrivener's error doctrine is "[a] rule permitting a typographical error in a document to be reformed by parol [(oral)] evidence, if the evidence is precise, clear, and convincing." Id.  

The Board regrets the scrivener's error but emphasizes its clear intention in the February 2026 decision was to issue a decision granting a 70 percent rating for the period on appeal in this appeal, which dates to March 25, 2023, which as noted above corresponds with the effective date of service connection, as correctly pointed out by the RO.  

The Board emphasizes that, aside from the cited scrivener's error, the Board's decision speaks for itself, and the facts and conclusions set forth in the decision that granted a 70 percent rating for PTSD were not otherwise challenged by the parties.  The necessary facts are stated, and the basis for the decision is clear.  

The decision to the extent that it denied a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is, however, reiterated below in view of the scrivener's error.  

The Board notes that, to the extent that the February 2026 decision grants a 70 percent rating for PTSD as well as TDIU, the Board is prohibited from vacating these favorable awards.  Murphy v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 510, 514-15 (2014).

2. A rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD is denied. 

The Veteran asserts that his service-connected psychiatric disability produces manifestations of occupational and social impairment that warrant a higher rating.  

The record reflects he has referenced having suicidal ideation as noted in his January 2024 statement, at the hearing and in the private psychology reports.  He also has argued suicidal thoughts, and delusions and hallucinations, justify a 70 and arguably a 100 percent rating.  

For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that his psychiatric disorder symptoms more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas for the entire period on appeal, and the evidence is persuasively against finding that they approximate more than that, specifically they do not approximate total occupational and social impairment.  

VA psychiatric examination in December 2024 reflects that the examiner assessed occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity.  Persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, neglect of personal appearance and hygiene, intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living, including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene, disorientation to time or place were not present.  

The examiner noted the Veteran's wife reported that they have been married for forty-seven years.  The Veteran reported occasional marital distress due to his mood swings and irritability.  The Veteran reported having anger outbursts in private (e.g., "I try not to do it publicly," "I've been known to use French").  The Veteran reported having "two daughters and one son."  The Veteran's wife confirmed that they live out of state.  The Veteran reported that he speaks to his children "occasionally" and that "my wife does more than I do."  The Veteran described himself as having a small circle of friends, primarily two neighbors who are veterans (e.g., "I have a couple of people that live on our dock and adjacent dock.")  The Veteran reported living on a boat with his wife.  The Veteran stated, "It's very nice to shut the door and crawl in the hole."  The Veteran
bursts in private (e.g., "I try not to do it publicly," "I've been known to use French").  The Veteran reported having "two daughters and one son."  The Veteran's wife confirmed that they live out of state.  The Veteran reported that he speaks to his children "occasionally" and that "my wife does more than I do."  The Veteran described himself as having a small circle of friends, primarily two neighbors who are veterans (e.g., "I have a couple of people that live on our dock and adjacent dock.")  The Veteran reported living on a boat with his wife.  The Veteran stated, "It's very nice to shut the door and crawl in the hole."  The Veteran reported hypervigilance "only every night."  He shared, "I walk through the boat at least twice a night."  The Veteran reported exaggerated negative beliefs and anxious thoughts.  He noted, "I have issues when I see certain people in public places," "I can't begin to tell you why," and "You begin to get in danger."  The Veteran reported a history of exaggerated startle response (e.g., "I was up and running outside," "It sounded like gunfire").

The Veteran was noted to be not on medication and not in therapy.  PTSD symptoms had persisted since the previous C&P exam in 2023 in the form of intrusions/re-experiencing symptoms, avoidance, negative alterations in cognition and mood, and marked arousal in physiological reactivity.  The Veteran and the Veteran's wife reported that the Veteran has been having progressive memory and cognitive difficulties.  

The Veteran's attorney urged that the prior examination, a September 2023 VA examination, was inadequate, citing that the examiner noted he had that report the examiner noted that the Veteran was experiencing visual hallucinations, however later noted no delusions or hallucinations evident or reported.  The attorney noted hallucinations are a symptom specifically listed under the criteria for 100 percent rating.  They submit that the non-VA psychologist reports more accurately reflect his symptoms which they urge support a 70 or 100 percent rating.  

The Board finds that, significantly, symptoms include suicidal ideation.  

The Veteran testified he experiences memory issues, nightmares, anxiety and panic attacks, depression episodes, hypervigilance, chronic sleep issues as he wakes up in the middle of the night and is unable to get back to sleep.  The Veteran also endorsed anger outbursts, flashbacks and nightmares daily, as well as isolating from friends and family other than his wife.  He reported two of his friends who were killed in Vietnam sometimes come back and talk with him at night.  He reported avoiding crowds and said stopped working at his job selling firearms in 2022.  He had previously worked as an assistant store manager at a Marine company for nine years and left after problems with the staff related to his work.

The Veteran's psychiatric disorder is rated under Diagnostic Code 9411.  38 C.F.R. § 4.130.  Relevant to this claim, the disability is rated using the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula).  Under that Formula, a 70 percent disability rating is warranted 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 worklike setting); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.

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

The Veteran clearly articulated functionally severe impairment due to his psychiatric disorder at the Board hearing.  He has reported the same general level of symptoms throughout the appeal.  He urged he has had suicidal ideation in his January 2024 letter.  A holistic review leads the Board as finder of fact to find that the symptoms have been ongoing at a sustained level.

The Board notes the Court has concluded that there are no descriptors, modifiers, or indicators as to suicidal ideation in the 70 percent rating.  The presence of suicidal ideation alone, that is, a Veteran's thoughts of his or her own death or thoughts of engaging in
 to time or place; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.

The Veteran clearly articulated functionally severe impairment due to his psychiatric disorder at the Board hearing.  He has reported the same general level of symptoms throughout the appeal.  He urged he has had suicidal ideation in his January 2024 letter.  A holistic review leads the Board as finder of fact to find that the symptoms have been ongoing at a sustained level.

The Board notes the Court has concluded that there are no descriptors, modifiers, or indicators as to suicidal ideation in the 70 percent rating.  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.  Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 21 (2017).

Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders, the Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria.  Bankhead, 29 Vet. App. at 22; 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).

As the evidence considered in determining the level of impairment under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 is not restricted to the symptoms provided in the code, the Board must consider all symptoms of a claimant's condition that affect occupational and social impairment.  Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 443 (2002).  If the evidence demonstrates that a Veteran suffers symptoms or effects that cause occupational or social impairment equivalent to what would be caused by the symptoms listed in the Diagnostic Code, the appropriate, equivalent rating will be assigned.  Id.; see also Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318, 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

The Board finds that the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disorder has been productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas throughout the appeal.  See Bankhead, 29 Vet. App. at 21.  

The Board, as finder of fact, finds this condition has been present at the 70 percent level throughout the period on appeal.  The Board emphasizes the references to suicidal thought from the Veteran at the hearing and in his January 2024 letter, as well as observed and listed as present by the non-VA psychologist.  

Based on the evidence of record, including that highlighted above, the Board finds that the evidence is approximately balanced regarding whether the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disorder has been productive of occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas throughout the appeal period.  He manifested a degree of severity that is consistent with the record throughout the appeal period.  

Critically, with regard to symptoms relevant to a 100 percent rating, after considering the reported symptoms in the record to specifically include the December 2024 VA psychiatric examination report, the non-VA psychologist's report and the Veteran's and his wife's testimony, the Board finds there is not gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; he has not been a persistent danger of hurting self or others; there is no intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene);and he does not demonstrate disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.  The criteria included for a 100 percent rating are overwhelmingly absent.  

Parenthetically, the Board notes the Veteran takes no medication and is not in therapy.  While the Board notes the non-VA examiner's assessment of hallucinations and delusions, the overall record does not show persistent hallucinations or delusions or disorientation and does not indicate symptoms consistent with over 70 percent.  The examination and treatment record is persuasively against a rating in excess of the 70 percent rating criteria.  

Here, in its role as a finder of fact, the Board finds that the evidence is persuasively against a 100 percent rating.  The criteria for a 100 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 9411 are not met or approximated.  As such, a rating in excess of 70 percent for psychiatric disability is not warranted at any time during the appeal period.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (