Case A26040770

DAVID GRATZ · 2026 · Case ID: A26040770

GRANTED

Summary

The veteran, who served from March 1976 to June 1976, appeals the denial of service connection for a psychiatric disorder and the disability rating assigned for schizophrenia. The veteran sought an earlier effective date for service connection, arguing that relevant service department records were not available at the time of the initial denial in October 1976. The Board found that the veteran's claim should have been reconsidered under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) due to the later association of relevant service records, including contradictory findings regarding the onset of schizophrenia. These records, along with favorable VA nexus opinions obtained in December 2019 and June 2020, supported granting service connection. The Board also reviewed the veteran's post-service treatment records, which indicated persistent symptoms of schizophrenia, including auditory hallucinations and delusions, since 1976. Considering the totality of the evidence and affording the veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board granted service connection for schizophrenia with an earlier effective date of June 22, 1976. Furthermore, the Board found that for the period prior to December 9, 2019, the veteran's symptoms warranted a 100 percent disability rating due to total occupational and social impairment, supported by the December 2019 VA examiner's findings and the persistent nature of his symptoms.

Rationale

Reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) warranted due to later associated service records.; Favorable VA nexus opinions obtained in December 2019 and June 2020.; Persistent symptoms of auditory hallucinations and delusions since 1976.

Special Benefit

TDIU

Docket No.

200830-108580

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040770
Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 200830-108580
DATE: April 30, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an effective date of June 22, 1976, the day following separation from active service, for the award of service connection for schizophrenia, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), is granted.

Prior to December 9, 2019, entitlement to a disability rating of 100 percent for schizophrenia is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On June 28, 1976, within one year of separation from service, the Veteran filed his original claim seeking entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder.

2. The Veteran's service connection claim was denied in an October 1976 rating decision on the basis that the claimed condition was not incurred in or aggravated by military service.

3. On April 27, 2012, VA received a petition from the Veteran's attorney requesting to reopen the previously denied service connection claim for a psychiatric disorder.

4. In February 2019, the Board made a favorable finding during the course of remanding the Veteran's claim that VA had received relevant official service department records that were not of record at the time of the October 1976 rating decision; the Board concluded that the Veteran's claim should be reconsidered on the merits pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).

5. The July 2020 rating decision granted service connection for schizophrenia, and this decision was at least based in part on newly associated relevant official service department records obtained since the October 1976 rating decision.

6. Prior to December 9, 2019, the Veteran's schizophrenia symptoms have been shown to be productive of total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to an effective date of June 22, 1976, for the award of service connection for schizophrenia are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 5110, 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).

2. Prior to December 9, 2019, the criteria for a 100 percent disability rating for schizophrenia have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9201.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1976 to June 1976.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2020 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the August 2020 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the?Hearing?docket. In July 2024, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the proceeding is in the record.

The Veteran in his August 2020 VA Form 10182 asserted that the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) was reasonably raised by the record but was not adjudicated in the July 2020 rating decision. However, in a recent?precedential opinion the?United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit?held that under the Appeals Modernization Act,?"a veteran's claims can no longer be implicitly denied."?Hamill v. Collins, 2026 U.S. App. LEXIS 3466?(Fed. Cir. 2026).?As such, the Board does not have jurisdiction over?the Veteran's claimed issue of entitlement to a TDIU because this issue was never adjudicated in the July 2020 rating decision on appeal.?

1. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for schizophrenia, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).

The Veteran seeks an effective date of June 22, 1976, one day after separation from active service, for the award of service connection for schizophrenia. He maintains that at the time service connection was first denied for a psychiatric disorder in a June 1976 rating decision, his complete service treatment records were not available for review. Since that time, the Veteran maintains that additional relevant military records were associated with his claims folder. As such, the Veteran argues that his service connection date should have been reconsidered under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), and he should have been assigned an effective date coincident with his discharge from military service.

Legal criteria

Under 38 C.F.R.
3.156(c).

Legal criteria

Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c), at any time after VA issues a decision on a claim, if VA receives or associates with the claims file "relevant" official service department records that existed and had not been associated with the claims file when VA first decided the claim, VA will "reconsider" the claim de novo. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(1). In such instance, the Veteran is not required to provide new and material evidence to reopen the claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (a).

If upon reconsideration, VA makes an award based "all or in part" on these newly associated service department records, the assigned effective date will be "the date entitlement arose or the date VA received the previously decided claim, whichever is later." 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(3); see Mayhue v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 273, 279 (2011) ("[A] claimant whose claim is reconsidered based on newly discovered service department records may be entitled to an effective date as early as the date of the original claim."). However, "reconsideration" of a claim under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(1) does not necessitate the assignment of an effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(3). Jones (Florence) v. Wilkie, 964 F.3d 1374, 1379-80 (Fed. Cir. 2020). To qualify for an earlier effective date under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(3), the award of benefits need not be based "solely" on the new service department records but must be based "at least in part" on service department records that were not before the VA at the time of the initial denial of the claim. Flores-Vazquez v. McDonough, 996 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2021). "In this sense," the Court has said of the operation of § 3.156(c), "the original claim is not just re-opened, it is reconsidered and serves as the date of the claim and the earliest date for which benefits may be granted." Vigil v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 63, 6667 (2008).

Therefore, if a claim is "reconsidered" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c), the claim will be treated as though the prior AOJ or Board denial never occurred. The point of the § 3.156(c) provisions is to put veterans in the positions they would have been had VA obtained and considered relevant service department records before adjudicating their earlier claims. See Blubaugh v. McDonald, 773 F.3d 1310, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Under such circumstances, the claim is not treated as a new and material evidence claim (see § 3.156(a)), or a clear and unmistakable error ("CUE") claim (see § 3.105(a)), but rather, is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).

The regulation identifies "relevant" service department records as service records that are related to a claimed in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(1)(i). Thus, the mere receipt of additional service department records is not enough to trigger reconsideration; the records must be "relevant." To be "relevant" for purposes of reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(1), the new service record must address a factual issue that was dispositive against the veteran in the prior VA adjudication, i.e., speak to an element in dispute, and therefore affect the outcome of the case. Kisor v. McDonough (Kisor IV), 995 F.3d
in-service event, injury, or disease, regardless of whether such records mention the veteran by name. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(1)(i). Thus, the mere receipt of additional service department records is not enough to trigger reconsideration; the records must be "relevant." To be "relevant" for purposes of reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c)(1), the new service record must address a factual issue that was dispositive against the veteran in the prior VA adjudication, i.e., speak to an element in dispute, and therefore affect the outcome of the case. Kisor v. McDonough (Kisor IV), 995 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Last, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in-service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

As a general matter, service connection for a disability requires evidence of: (1) the existence of a current disability; (2) the existence of the disease or injury in-service, and; (3) a relationship or nexus between the current disability and any injury or disease during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Analysis

Turning to the facts of the case, on June 28, 1976, within one year of separation from service, the Veteran filed his original claim seeking entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. Service connection was denied in an October 1976 rating decision on the basis that the claimed condition was not incurred in or aggravated by military service.

On April 27, 2012, VA received a petition from the Veteran's attorney requesting to reopen the previously denied service connection claim for a psychiatric disorder.

In February 2019, the Board made a favorable finding during the course of remanding the Veteran's claim that VA had received relevant official service department records that were not of record at the time of the October 1976 rating decision; the Board concluded that the Veteran's claim should be reconsidered on the merits pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c).

The Board is bound by its own favorable finding absent clear and unmistakable error, which as the Board will explain below, is not demonstrated in this case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104 (c).

A review of the available record at the time of the October 1976 rating decision shows that military personnel records documented that the Veteran was relieved from duty and hospitalized at a VA hospital in Brockton, Massachusetts pending separation from service. See May 1976 military personnel record. Another military personnel record received by VA on July 12, 1976, confirms the Veteran has relieved from his assignment at Lackland Air Force Base and was presently at a VA hospital. The record indicated that the Veteran was honorably discharged on June 21, 1976. A deferred rating decision dated August 5, 1976, indicated that a request was made for the Veteran's Physical Evaluation Board Report. This record also indicates that a "Medical Board Report was disapproved by commanding officer on 5-11-76 and case was referred to P.E. Board for decision."

A deferred rating decision dated on July 6, 1976, requested that the Veteran's Physical Evaluation Board Report be obtained from the military. A Request for Information dated July 30, 1976, similarly requested that "all medical + clinical records including entrance + separation exams and all P.E.B (Physical Evaluation Board) reports" be obtained. This document noted that "[n]o additional medical records found" and all medical and dental records were forwarded to the VA Regional Office in Boston. Two deferred rating decisions dated on August 4 and August 5, 1976, again requested the Veteran's available service records, to include a May 11, 1976, Physical Evaluation Board Report.

A review of available service treatment records received following the Veteran's April 2012 petition to reopen his service connection claim includes clinical records dated in March and April 1976 which indicates the Veteran was seen in the emergency room at Lackland Air Force Base and hospitalized for a diagnosis of schizophrenia. A Medical Board Report dated in May 1976 indicated the Veteran was diagnosed with schizophrenia with an approximate date of origin of 1976. The report indicated that the Veteran's medical condition was incurred while the Veteran was entitled to basic pay, and also that the Veteran's schizophrenia did not exist prior to service. This document also indicates that the Veteran's case was referred to a Physical Evaluation Board. A May 1976 document entitled "Findings and Recommended Disposition of USAF Physical Evaluation Board" indicated that the Veteran was diagnosed with a schizophrenic reaction, paranoid type, at the time of service. The document also indicated a finding that the Veteran's psychiatric diagnosis existed prior to service "without service aggravation beyond the natural course of the condition."

It is not entirely clear when the Veteran's service treatment records that are presently located in the electronic document dated June 5, 2014, first became associated with the Veteran's claims folder. There is a document at the top of the records file labelled "Request for Information" and dated on September 8, 1976. Additionally, largely illegible date stamps on the third and fourth pages of this cache of documents are dated September 14, 1976, and August 30, 2013; however, it cannot be discerned what agency placed the September 1976 date stamp. Under these circumstances, the Board cannot find clear and unmistakable error which would overturn its own favorable finding made in the February 2019 Board remand decision that VA had received relevant official service department records that were not of record at the time of the October 1976 rating decision.

Thus, in the present case, since "relevant" service department records have been received after the October 1976 rating decision, it follows that the issue of entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability should have been reconsidered pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c) at the time of the July 2020 rating decision that granted service connection for schizophrenia.

Once it is determined that reconsideration is warranted under subsection 3.156 (c)(1), paragraph (c)(3) establishes the effective date for any benefits granted as a result of reconsideration. In that situation, VA is required to "reconsider" the veteran's claim, taking into account all the evidence of record, including the newly obtained service department records. Id. If the veteran is then granted benefits based at least in part on the service department records, the award of benefits is made retroactive to the date of the veteran's original claim, or the date on which the veteran became eligible for benefits, whichever is later. Id. § 3.156(c)(3); see Jones v. Wilkie, 964 F.3d 1374, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2020); Blubaugh, 773 F.3d at 1313.

In this case, the Board concludes that the award of service connection was at least in part based on the newly received service treatment records. As noted above, the Veteran's service treatment records include contradictory findings made in a May 1976 Medical Evaluation Board report and a May 1976 Physical Evaluation Board report regarding the onset of the Veteran's diagnosed schizophrenia. As noted in the July 2020 rating decision which granted service connection, a VA examiner provided positive nexus opinions dated December 2019 and June 2020 which related the Veteran's schizophrenia to his period of active duty service. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board concludes that the claim of service connection for schizophrenia is warranted on the basis of the newly associated service treatment records and the VA examiner opinions obtained in December 2019 and June 2020.

Under these circumstances, the Board concludes that the date of the Veteran's service connection claim must be the date of filing of the original claim on June 28, 1976. Therefore, an earlier effective date of June 22, 1976, the day following separation from active service, is warranted for the award of service connection for schizophrenia. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156(c), 3.400 (2)(i).

The appeal is granted.

2. Entitlement to an increased rating for schizophrenia

The issue before the Board is whether the Veteran is entitled to an increased disability rating for his schizophrenia prior to December 9, 2019. As
obtained in December 2019 and June 2020.

The appeal is granted.

2. Entitlement to an increased rating for schizophrenia

The issue before the Board is whether the Veteran is entitled to an increased disability rating for his schizophrenia prior to December 9, 2019. As will be discussed in more detail below, the Board concludes that, prior to December 9, 2019, the overall symptomatology and level of impairment more closely approximated the criteria for a?100 percent?rating. Therefore, an increased evaluation is warranted.

Disability evaluations are determined by comparing a veteran's present symptoms with criteria set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), which is based on average impairment in earning capacity.?38 U.S.C. § 1155;?38 C.F.R. Part 4. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities.

When a question arises as to which of two ratings applies under a particular code, the higher rating is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating.?38 C.F.R. § 4.7. After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the veteran.?38 U.S.C. § 5107;?38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, known as pyramiding, is to be avoided.?38 C.F.R. § 4.14.

Where service connection has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown,?7 Vet. App. 55, 58?(1994).

When evaluating a mental disorder, VA 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. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination.?38 C.F.R. § 4.126.

The Veteran's schizophrenia is currently evaluated under DC 9201, in accordance with the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. See?38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

Under the provisions for rating psychiatric disorders, a 70 percent disability rating requires evidence of the following:

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.

The criteria for a?100 percent?rating are:

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

38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9201.

When determining the appropriate disability evaluation to assign, the Board's primary consideration is a veteran's symptoms, but it must also make findings as to how those symptoms impact a veteran's occupational and social impairment. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki,?713 F.3d 112?(Fed. Cir. 2013); Mauerhan v. Principi,?16 Vet. App. 436?(2002). Because the use of the term "such as" in the rating criteria demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, the Board need not find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms to award a specific rating. Mauerhan,?16 Vet. App. at 442; see also Sellers v. Principi,
's symptoms, but it must also make findings as to how those symptoms impact a veteran's occupational and social impairment. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki,?713 F.3d 112?(Fed. Cir. 2013); Mauerhan v. Principi,?16 Vet. App. 436?(2002). Because the use of the term "such as" in the rating criteria demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, the Board need not find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms to award a specific rating. Mauerhan,?16 Vet. App. at 442; see also Sellers v. Principi,?372 F.3d 1318?(Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, all ratings in the general rating formula 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 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Vazquez-Claudio,?713 F.3d at 118.

Turning to the facts of this case, the Board in July 2020 granted the Veteran's claim seeking entitlement to service connection for schizophrenia. In the rating decision on appeal, the Veteran was awarded a 100 percent evaluation effective December 9, 2019. Prior to that date, he was assigned a 70 percent evaluation. As detailed above, the Board has granted him an earlier effective date of June 22, 1976, for the award of service connection. ?

A July 1977 medical record indicates that the Veteran was hospitalized for his psychiatric disability. The progress note indicated that the Veteran appeared much improved and stated that he was eating and sleeping well. He denied experiencing hallucinations or "any ideas of reference." He also denied experiencing crying spells, suicidal ideation and denied ever making a suicidal attempt. He also denied taking any alcoholic beverage or marijuana since his admission. The note indicated the Veteran was granted full privileges and left the ward on a day pass with his family the prior weekend. He reported that he was planning on returning to the home of his parents upon leaving the hospital. The medical provider indicated that the Veteran did not appear to be "overtly psychotic, depressed or manicky". He was noted to be taking Stelazine, which is an antipsychotic medication that was used to treat schizophrenia.

A September 1977 hospital summary noted the Veteran was admitted to a VA hospital for the second time in July 1977 to treat symptoms of his schizophrenia. His previous hospital admission was from June to July 1976. It was noted that prior to his second hospitalization, the Veteran reportedly stopped taking his medication and began to be suspicious and have paranoid ideation regarding his parents. The Veteran himself reported that he had suicidal ideation prior to admission, but he denied committing any injury to himself. He also began drinking and taking marijuana prior to his hospitalization. He also reported recently quitting a job working in a restaurant "because girls in the restaurant seemed to be talking about him." At the time of his admission, the Veteran was noted to be anxious. His responses were sometimes tangential and associations were loose at times. He also appeared to experience auditory hallucinations and ideas of reference. He appeared mildly depressed but showed improvement after being placed on antipsychotic medication. By the time of his discharge the Veteran denied experiencing any hallucinations and did not express delusional material. It was noted that the Veteran "did not appear highly motivated toward cooperation with the efforts of the staff, and submitted a letter requesting his discharge against medical advice, which he retracted." He was later granted passes to reside in the home of his parents. Medical providers then determined that the Veteran had improved sufficiently so that hospitalization was no longer required, and he could continue his treatment as an outpatient. The Veteran was seen for evaluation by the mental hygiene clinic "however he was found not motivated or amenable to the program of that clinic."

A December 1979 VA treatment record notes that the Veteran was again hospitalized after presenting to an emergency room for unrelated treatment. The Veteran's medical history noted that he had been hospitalized several times for exacerbation of his schizophrenia symptoms - most notably delusions, auditory hallucinations and suicidal ideation. It was also noted that the Veteran's attendance to outpatient treatment had been increasingly sporadic. He reported that voices had been taunting him with increasing frequency "and he hit a fence for relief." On admission, the Veteran appeared to be disheveled and made poor eye contact. He was preoccupied with feelings of inadequacy. His thoughts were remarkable for ideas of reference, thought broadcasting, thought withdrawal, thought control, auditory hallucinations and occasional vague suicidal ideation. The examiner speculated that the symptoms were precipitated by the Veteran losing his job, moving out of his house, discontinuing use of his medication, and experiencing difficulties with his outpatient therapy. The examiner noted that while the Veteran's condition improved during his hospital stay, "much of his schizophrenic symptomatology remains."

An August 1980 private treatment record reflects that the Veteran was hospitalized for his psychiatric symptoms after he was arrested for marijuana possession. The Veteran reported experiencing auditory hallucinations telling him that he is the richest man in the world. He also endorsed experiencing paranoid delusions that the "Vietnamese were after him." The examiner noted that the Veteran looked his stated age but was inappropriately dressed with a dirty shirt and jeans, swelling with sore feet, and showing an angry facial expression. The examiner noted the Veteran was cooperative but was agitated and tense. His stream of speech was slowed and slurred, interrupted with staccato phrases. Associations were loose, and his speech was, for the most part, irrelevant and incoherent.

A May 1995 VA treatment record noted that the Veteran was working as a bagger "but is able to put a limit on it when he feels that he needs some time off." The record noted that the Veteran's delusions and hallucinations were still present but not as intense. He was assessed with schizophrenia that was stabilizing and improving on increased dose. A VA treatment record dated later that same month noted the Veteran's reports of "increased voices coming from the teeth that were very disturbing".

A December 1995 VA treatment record noted the Veteran's endorsement of experiencing auditory hallucinations and delusions that were not as bad as his symptoms from the prior week.

In December 2019, the Veteran underwent a VA examination in connection with his service connection claim for schizophrenia. The examiner noted a diagnosis of schizophrenia and concluded that the Veteran suffered from total occupational and social impairment. The examiner noted that the Veteran has never been married and has no children. He reported having limited friendships and he lived alone, but he saw his family weekly and spent time with his sister. He reported being able to complete his household chores and self-care such as showering and dressing. He reported having five jobs since he was discharged from the military. The longest time spent at any one job was as a clerk in his present position, which he has held for 22 years. He reported working as a grocery store clerk and worked about one day per week for five to 10 hours. He reported receiving medical treatment for his schizophrenia since 1976. He was presently taking Clozapine to manage his symptoms. He also reported undergoing multiple psychiatric hospitalizations, the most recent which occurred in 1992.

At his December 2019 VA examination the Veteran reported experiencing auditory hallucinations that included his nephew "joking" and his aunt who is a "real problem." He denied experiencing visual hallucinations. He denied experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation. The examiner noted symptoms that included circumstantial, circumlocutory or stereotyped speech, speech that was intermittently illogical, obscure or irrelevant, impaired abstract thinking, gross impairment in thought processes or communication, and persistent delusions or hallucinations.

Following a review of the evidence of record and affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt, the Board finds that for the period prior to December 9, 2019, the Veteran's schizophrenia warrants a?100 percent?disability rating. The evidence establishes that the Veteran suffered from total occupational and social impairment. This finding was made by the December 2019 VA examiner, whose determination came following a review of the medical evidence of record and examination of the Veteran. The VA examiner's findings are supported by available post-service medical evidence of record which confirms the Veteran has been taking medication to treat symptoms of his schizophrenia since he was first diagnosed in 1976. He suffers from symptoms that include persistent auditory hallucinations and delusions that have been present throughout the entire period on appeal. These symptoms have apparently been improved by his ongoing psychiatric medication use but the medical evidence of record shows he has been experiencing such symptoms since discharge from service and to the present day. The
percent?disability rating. The evidence establishes that the Veteran suffered from total occupational and social impairment. This finding was made by the December 2019 VA examiner, whose determination came following a review of the medical evidence of record and examination of the Veteran. The VA examiner's findings are supported by available post-service medical evidence of record which confirms the Veteran has been taking medication to treat symptoms of his schizophrenia since he was first diagnosed in 1976. He suffers from symptoms that include persistent auditory hallucinations and delusions that have been present throughout the entire period on appeal. These symptoms have apparently been improved by his ongoing psychiatric medication use but the medical evidence of record shows he has been experiencing such symptoms since discharge from service and to the present day. The evidence of record also demonstrates that the Veteran has experienced gross impairment in his thinking and communication, and these symptoms have also persisted from discharge from service to the present day.

(Continued on the next page)

As Veteran's schizophrenia symptoms were of such severity as to render him totally impaired, the Board grants entitlement to a?100 percent?evaluation for the entirety of the period on appeal.

David Gratz

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Komperda, 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