Citation Nr: A25106901 Decision Date: 12/11/25 Archive Date: 12/11/25 DOCKET NO. 250814-578687 DATE: December 11, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include social anxiety disorder, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder resulted in at most occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity throughout the appeal period. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for acquired psychiatric disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably in the US Marines from February 2014 to February 2015. This issue comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2024 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In an August 2025 VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal Notice of Disagreement (NOD), the Veteran elected direct review by a Veterans Law Judge. He did not submit any additional evidence in support of his appeal. Based on the Veteran's choice to pursue a direct review of his appeals, the Board will decide the appeal based on the evidence of record at the time of the AOJ decisions on appeal. Accordingly, no additionally submitted evidence may be considered. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Thus, the Board cannot consider evidence submitted subsequent to such rating decision. Id. If evidence was associated with the claims file during a period of time when additional evidence was not allowed, the Board has not considered it in this decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, he may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. The Veteran's claim for service connection for social anxiety disorder (also claimed as agoraphobia and anxiety) has been recharacterized to include all psychiatric disorders reasonably raised by the record. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23?Vet. App.?1 (2009). 1. Evaluation of social anxiety disorder (also claimed as agoraphobia and anxiety), which is currently 50 percent disabling, is continued. A July 2024 rating decision established service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability that was at that time identified as social anxiety disorder (claimed as agoraphobia and anxiety). On appeal, the Veteran seeks to appeal the 50 percent disability evaluation. Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which assigns ratings based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from a service-connected disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. To evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran's condition. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1?Vet. App.?589, 594 (1991). Where an increase in the level of a disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability. Francisco v. Brown, 7?Vet. App.?55 (1994). As in the instant case, separate ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts may be for consideration. Fenderson v. West, 12?Vet. App.?119 (1999). A noncompensable rating is assigned when a mental condition has been formally diagnosed, but symptoms are not severe enough to either require continuous medication, or to interfere with occupational and social functioning. A 10 percent rating is assigned when mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of occasional stress, or symptoms controlled by medication cause occupational and social impairment. A 30 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, or mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events), cause occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and normal conversation). A 50 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships cause occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. 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. In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors the claim or is in approximate balance, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. In other words, when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination, the benefit of the doubt is afforded to the claimant. U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (2021). By way of history, the VA granted service connection for the above acquired psychiatric disability in July 2024, with a 50 percent rating effective March 25, 2024. The Veteran contends that a rating greater than the current 50 percent rating is warranted. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination for mental disorders in May 2024. He was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder, which the examiner stated was present at the time of his military service, and was aggravated by occupational stress while in the military. No other mental health diagnoses meeting DSM-5 criteria were present. The examiner specifically stated that the Veteran did not meet the DSM-5 criteria for a diagnosis of agoraphobia or depression. The examiner assessed the Veteran's overall occupational and social impairment as one characterized by occasional decrease in work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care, and conversation. This description is used most often to describe a 30 percent psychiatric stability picture. The Veteran was born and raised in College Station, Texas with two brothers. He was raised by both parents and did not experience any abuse growing up. He reported that he did have problems with anxiety starting in high school, particularly in large groups or when talking in front of people. He received treatment from his sophomore to his senior year for anxiety. He did not have any substance abuse problems, although he did get a ticket for a minor in possession of alcohol after a party. The Veteran noted a worsening of his anxiety after 3 months of joining the Marine Corps. He had sleep disturbance, anhedonia, difficulty controlling his anger, and excessive worry. He was diagnosed with an occupational problem and insomnia and was started on psychotherapy in the military. He eventually indicated a lack of desire for retention in the military and was deemed unsuitable for continued military service. He was recommended for administrative separation. The Veteran continued to receive mental health treatment after discharge. He was prescribed various anti-anxiety medications. In the spring of 2017 the Veteran had an attempted suicide. He took Xanax and alcohol and was found in the woods by the police. He was hospitalized for four days. He no longer uses that medication but is currently taking Buspirone and escitalopram for anxiety. The Veteran stated that he no longer has suicidal or homicidal ideation. At that examination, his current symptoms included ongoing fears of being with others, producing racing, worrisome thoughts. He has these worries throughout the day. He notes that they cause insomnia, but that he typically gets 6 to 8 hours of sleep with the use of the CPAP machine, which he has been using for about 6 months. He notices restlessness and fluctuation of his motivation throughout the day. He says exercising helps diminish his anxiety. He notes that work keeps him busy and helps him manage anxiety. He also has a core group of friends who provide support, although it is tough for him to make new friends. The VA examiner at this evaluation reported the following current symptoms: anxiety, chronic sleep impairment, disturbances of motivation and mood, and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work-like setting. The examiner did not report that the Veteran had any suicidal ideation or impaired impulse control. At this examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran was casually dressed with unremarkable hygiene. He was cooperative. His mood was dysphoric, and he was generally anxious. He was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. His speech was normal in volume, rhythm, and clarity. His thought processes were logical and sequential. There were no perceptual disturbances noted, and he specifically denied any suicidal or homicidal ideation. His concentration and attention were normal. His judgment and insight or within normal limits, and he was a reliable informant. Analysis Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric symptoms more nearly approximate the criteria for a 30 percent or 50 percent evaluation. A rating of 70 percent or more is not warranted. The record does not demonstrate that the Veteran experienced intermittent illogical, obscure or irrelevant speech as a result of his acquired psychiatric symptomology during this time period. His VA and private treatment records reported the Veteran's speech to be normal. There is also no evidence of the Veteran exhibiting spatial disorientation, or of neglect of his personal appearance and hygiene. While the Veteran reported decreased motivation, the majority of the evidence shows that he was found to be casually dressed and appropriately groomed. The Veteran's VA and private treatment records reported his thought process to be intact and goal-directed. The evidence also does not demonstrate that the Veteran reported any disorientation to time or place. Additionally, the evidence does not demonstrate that he has experienced any auditory or visual hallucinations. In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has experienced any prolonged short term or long-term memory issues. The Veteran has reported episodes of depression and anxiety; however, the evidence does not demonstrate near-continuous panic or depression affecting his ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively. The record reflects that the Veteran's depression and anxiety has waxed and waned throughout the appeal period. However, there is no indication that the Veteran experiences obsessive thoughts which affected his employability or social interactions. The Veteran has long-term friends who provide support. This evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran has an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships as a result of his acquired psychiatric disorder. The evidence of record also demonstrates that the Veteran has not experienced any auditory or visual hallucinations, as well as any other symptoms of psychosis. Additionally, despite his suicide attempt in 2017, the probative evidence of record does not support the Veteran currently experiencing suicidal or homicidal ideation. In fact, the VA examiner specifically points out the Veteran currently has no suicidal or homicidal ideation. The Veteran has stated that he experiences worrisome thoughts and anxiety, but there is no evidence that these symptoms are productive of social and occupational impairment more than contemplated by a 50 percent rating. There is no evidence that this anxiety is accompanied by any acts of violence. There is no evidence of substance abuse or alcohol abuse. As stated above, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment. As set out above, the evidence of record more nearly approximates symptoms suggestive of the 30 or 50 percent ratings, based, in part, on no evidence of the following: 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; spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. The Board acknowledged that the Veteran experiences occupational and social deficiencies because of his acquired psychiatric symptomology. However, his symptoms have not resulted in occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. As such, a higher rating of 70 percent is not warranted. In adjudicating this claim, the competence and credibility of lay statements must be considered by the Board. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Washington v. Nicholson, 19?Vet. App.?362, 368-69 (2005). The Veteran contends his symptoms warrant a higher rating. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's lay statements and that he is competent to give evidence about what he observes or experiences. Layno v. Brown, 6?Vet. App.?465 (1994). That stated, these allegations of worsening symptomology are undercut by the other pertinent evidence of record, which does not favor a finding that the Veteran is entitled to a higher rating than the 50 percent currently assigned for his psychiatric disability during the appeal period based on the symptomology present. He denied experiencing frequent panic attacks, hallucinations, delusions, memory issues, spatial disorientation, suicidal or homicidal ideation, and obsessional rituals that would interfere with his routine activities. (Continued on next page) Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the Veteran's acquired psychiatric symptomology has been productive of, at most, occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity during the entire appeal period. As such, a higher rating for the Veteran's entitlement is not warranted at any time. The evidence persuasively weighs against the claim and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). Thomas L. English Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Seibert, Andrew L. II 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.