Anxiety VA Claim Grants

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. The Veteran's acquired psychiatric conditions, to include PTSD, anxiety and depression, are related to military sexual trauma (MST) and other trauma experienced in service. 2. The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have prevented her from obtaining and maintaining employment consistent with her occupational and vocational experience throughout the period on appeal.

Reasons & Bases (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1982 to March 2006. During the Veteran's service she received the following awards and badges: Air Force achievement medal with one oak leaf cluster, Air Force Commendation Medal, Armed Forced Expeditionary Medal, Noncommissioned Officer (NCO) Professional Military Education Ribbon with one oak leaf cluster; National Defense Service Medal with one bronze service star; Air Force Overseas Short Tour Ribbon, Air Force Training Ribbon, Air Force Longevity Service Award with four oak leaf clusters, Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with one oak leaf cluster; Korean Service Medal with one oak leaf cluster; Korean Defense Service Medal; Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary Medal; Global War on Terrorism Service Medal; Air Force Expeditionary Service Ribbon with gold border; Combat Readiness Medal; Air Force Outstanding Unit Award with Valor with six oak left clusters; Air Force Good conduct medal with six oak leaf clusters; and Senior Command and Control Badge. " See July 2015 VA form 21-526b. In determining the scope of a claim, the Board must consider the Veteran's description of the claim, symptoms described, and the information submitted or developed in support of the claim. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009).…

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. In a June 2008 rating decision, the RO denied the Veteran's claim for entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder; the Veteran did not submit a Notice of Disagreement (NOD), no new and material evidence was received within one year of the decision, and the decision became final. 2. The evidence received since the June 2008 rating decision is not cumulative or redundant, does relate to an unestablished fact, and does raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. 3.…

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

The competent, credible, and probative lay and medical evidence is in approximate balance as to whether the Veteran's unspecified anxiety disorder is attributable to service.

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disability more nearly approximates both total occupational and social impairment. 2. The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have met the percentage requirements for the award of a schedular TDIU, and the evidence indicates that since June 25, 2015, the nature and severity of these disabilities prevented him from performing gainful employment for which his education and occupational experience would otherwise qualify him.

Reasons & Bases (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran served on active duty from August 2007 to June 2015. These matters are before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) from a December 2016 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) continuing the Veteran's evaluation of 30 percent for unspecified anxiety disorder, and a May 2016 rating decision denying entitlement to individual employability. In a June 2015 rating decision, the RO granted the Veteran service connection for unspecified anxiety disorder with an evaluation of 30 percent effective June 25, 2015. The Veteran submitted a Notice of Disagreement in October 2015 seeking a 40 percent disability rating for unspecified anxiety disorder. In April 2016, the Veteran submitted an Appeal to the Board with a request for a hearing. In December 2016, the RO issued a rating decision continuing the Veteran's evaluation of 30 percent for unspecified anxiety disorder. The Veteran submitted another Notice of Disagreement in May 2017 disputing the 30 percent rating for unspecified anxiety disorder. The RO issued a rating decision in April 2018 increasing the Veteran's evaluation for unspecified anxiety disorder to 70 percent effective July 29, 2016. Entitlement to individual employability was granted effective July 29, 2016 as well.…

Findings of Fact (verbatim from decision)

1. In her May 2023 hearing, prior to a decision being promulgated by the Board on the Veteran's claim for entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 31, 2018 for the award of a 30 percent rating for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression, the Veteran indicated her desire to withdraw that issue from the appeal. 2. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's mental health disability has been manifested most closely by symptoms equating in severity, frequency, and duration to occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as flattened affect, impaired memory, anxiety, depression, sleep impairment, and disturbances in…

Reasons & Bases (verbatim from decision)

The Veteran had active-duty service in the U.S. Air Force from September 2001 to October 2005. 1. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than August 31, 2018 for the award of a 30 percent rating for adjustment disorder with mixed anxiety and depression has been withdrawn and is dismissed. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. Id. In the instant case, during the May 2023 hearing, the Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) had an extensive discussion with the Veteran and her attorney regarding the issue of an earlier effective date for the award of a 30 percent rating for her mental health disability on appeal. Specifically, the VLJ noted that the Veteran would like to withdraw the earlier effective date issue. The VLJ noted that, if the Veteran withdraws the issue, she would not get an opportunity from the Board to review that issue. The VLJ asked if she "still want[ed] to withdraw that earlier effective date," and the Veteran replied, "Yes, sir." Therefore, the Board finds that the withdrawal was specific, unambiguous, and made with the Veteran's fu…