BVA Case 23-5944: Ptsd

After the Board denied a rating in excess of 30%for the appellant's PTSD, he appealed to the Court,and the parties entered into a joint motion for partial remand,which the Court granted.

In August 2023,the Board denied an initial rating in excess of 30%for PTSD.

Parties'Arguments The appellant argues that the Board denied a 50%rating based on standards that are not set out in the rating criteria.

Further,the appellant contends that the Board should not have relied on his participation in therapy to deny him a higher rating;the Board did not consider evidence that he was not working during the full period on appeal;there is no support for the Board's findings that his prior work was skilled and thus suggested that his memory is not impaired;and the Board overlooked favorable evidence that checking the house locks multiple times per night was causing interference with his sleep,a routine activity.

The Board's determination of the proper disability rating is a finding of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard of review.

A finding of fact is clearly erroneous when the Court,after reviewing the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.

As with any material issue of fact or law,the Board must provide a statement of reasons or bases that is adequate to enable a claimant to understand the precise basis for the Board's decision,as well as to facilitate review in this Court.

Board Decision As an initial matter,the Board noted that the appellant had reported symptoms including depression,anxiety,flashbacks, hypervigilance,sleep difficulties, interpersonal problems, cognitive deficits,and social isolation.