BVA Case 22-3160: Ptsd

Real Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · October 23,2023 · PIETSCH, Judge

Outcome
Affirmed
Decision Date
October 23,2023
Judge
PIETSCH, Judge
Service Era
Not specified

Conditions Claimed

PtsdPsychiatricBackHearing_LossTinnitusHipSkinHeartTdiuEye

Issues on Appeal

Service ConnectionEffective DateTdiuIncreased RatingDicHearing LossPtsd

Why It Was Decided This Way

In an April 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 17,2011,for the grant of TDIU for accrued-benefits purposes.

In the February 3,2022,decision,the Board denied the claim for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 17, 2011,for the grant of a TDIU for accrued-benefits purposes.

The Board found that prior to August 17,2011, the competent and credible evidence of record is not in approximate balance but instead,persuasively establishes that the Veteran [was] not precluded from securing or following substantially gainful employment due to his service- connected disabilities.

The Board found that the veteran could perform a job in an office environment that involves individual computer work, including writing or paperwork specifically based on his educational background which includes four years of college.

In addition,the Board found that the Veteran could also have performed any job that primarily involved working alone, rather than collaboratively,including data entry,quality control,packaging,or serving as a surveillance monitor.

Still,the Board found that the veteran could perform certain types of physical employment with minimal communication with others,such as painting, R.

To satisfy this requirement,the Board must account for evidence it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,analyze the credibility and probative value of relevant evidence,and provide reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to appellant.

According to the appellant, [a]lthough she does not agree with the adverse findings that the Board made to resolve disputes of fact,she is not here challenging any adverse factual findings as being clearly erroneous.

Authorities Cited

Allday v. BrownArline v. McCaluza v. BrownCiting Thurber v. BrownClain v. NicholsonEvans v. McFloore v. ShinsekiGleicher v. DerwinskiKahana v. ShinsekiPederson v. McPratt v. DerwinskiPrickett v. NicholsonRay v. WilkieSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Anderson v. Bessemer CitySee Evans v. WestSee Frankel v. DerwinskiSee Gilbert v. DerwinskiSee Hilkert v. WestSee Johnson v. ShinsekiSee Newhouse v. NicholsonSee Shinseki v. SandersSee Solomon v. BrownSee Withers v. WilkieSmith v. DerwinksiSmith v. ShinsekiTucker v. WestVan Hoose v. BrownWages v. McWashington v. Derwinski

Denial Type

Credibility|Inadequate Exam

Find Similar Precedent for Your Claim

VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.

Run my claim through VetAid →