Citation Nr: 21008473 Decision Date: 02/17/21 Archive Date: 02/17/21 DOCKET NO. 19-33 193 DATE: February 17, 2021 ORDER An initial rating higher than 70 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s mental health disability has manifested as occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, but without total social impairment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.126, 4.130, DC 9411. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1961 to April 1966. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a February 2018 rating decision. The Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned in Portland, Oregon in March 2020. In April 2020, the Board granted a higher initial rating of 50 percent for PTSD and remanded the issue of an even higher rating for PTSD for additional development. Thereafter, an October 2020 rating decision granted an even higher initial rating of 70 percent for PTSD. It also granted entitlement to a TDIU and basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance for the entire appeal period. The record reflects PTSD is the Veteran’s only service-connected disability. As such, the only issue on appeal is whether the Veteran is entitled to an initial rating higher than 70 percent for his PTSD. *** Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula), the Board must conduct a “holistic analysis” that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 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). In pertinent part, a 70 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; 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); or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. 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 issue in this appeal is whether the Veteran’s associated symptoms have caused the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent. As detailed above, for the Veteran to be entitled to a rating of 100 percent, the evidence must show that his symptoms result in total social and occupational impairment. In this case, however, the preponderance of the competent and probative evidence is against such a finding. Significantly, an October 2020 VA examination indicates that the Veteran lived with his significant other, with whom he had been for 30 years. He stated that he got along well with her and noted that he socialized with his son, stepson, and grandson. He did report having trust issues that negatively impact his socializing. He also mentioned that a friend had passed away and he no longer had friends. The examiner described the Veteran’s social impairment as difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective social relationships. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran’s symptoms result in total occupational impairment. Nevertheless, while the evidence establishes that the Veteran experiences social impairment, the weight of the evidence is against a finding that such social impairment is total. See Merriam-Webster, Total, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/total (defining "total" as "comprising or constituting a whole: entire" and second entry states "absolute, utter"). As mentioned, the Veteran has recently stated that he has a good relationship with his significant other and he socializes with close relatives. Additionally, the October 2020 VA examiner described the Veteran’s social impairment as difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective social relationships, as opposed to an inability to do, which would be indicative of total impairment. Finally, the Board notes that, while the Veteran does not currently have friends, he reported having had one friend until the latter passed away. Based on this evidence, the Board concludes that these symptoms have not caused the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 100 percent. The preponderance of the evidence weighs against a finding of total social and occupational impairment. As such, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptoms more nearly approximate the impairment associated with a 70 percent rating, and result in a level of impairment that most closely approximates a 70 percent rating. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P. López, 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.