Citation Nr: A26034603
Decision Date: 04/14/26	Archive Date: 04/14/26

DOCKET NO. 250602-551886
DATE: April 14, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

Entitlement to an initial evaluation higher than 70 percent for the service-connected major depressive disorder with anxious distress is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Probative evidence does not establish the experience of tinnitus symptoms during the review period.

2. During the appeal period, the Veteran's psychiatric symptoms are shown to have caused no worse than occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for bilateral tinnitus are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304. 

2. The criteria for a rating higher than 70 percent for service-connected major depressive disorder with anxious distress from April 29, 2024, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1985 to January 1991. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO).

In the June 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the April 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 20.801. 

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 

Service connection

Generally, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, or nexus, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In making all determinations, the Board must fully consider the lay assertions of record. A layperson is competent to report on the onset and recurrence of symptoms. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). When considering whether lay evidence is competent the Board must determine, on a case by case basis, whether the Veteran's particular disability is the type of disability for which lay evidence may be competent. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d at 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that "[w]hether lay evidence is competent and sufficient in a particular case is a factual issue to be addressed by the Board").

Once evidence is determined to be competent, the Board must determine whether such evidence is also credible. See Layno, supra (distinguishing between competency-"a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered"-and credibility, "a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted"). The Board is also charged with the duty to assess the probative weight given to all evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).

The Board is also charged with the duty to assess the probative weight given to all evidence. Madden v. Gober, 125 F.3d 1477, 1481 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1046 (1998); Wensch v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 362, 367 (2001).

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 778 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Entitlement to service connection for tinnitus is denied.

The Veteran asserts that he experiences tinnitus, which should be service connected. After careful review of the medical evidence and lay testimony, the Board must disagree.

As above, the first required element of service connection is a current disability. See Shedden, supra. After careful review, the Board finds that no probative medical evidence establishes the experience of tinnitus symptoms during the review period. Therefore, service connection must be denied. 

In September 2024, the Board received an audiological opinion endorsed by a chiropractor. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, an examination for hearing impairment for VA purposes must be conducted by a state-licensed audiologist and must include a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC) and a puretone audiometry test. In theory, the chiropractor is not disqualified from giving a probative opinion for the cause of the Veteran's tinnitus. 

For her part, the chiropractor submitted a reference to "chapter 460 of the Florida statutes [] which says in part: 'any chiropractic physician who has complied with the provisions of this chapter may examine, and diagnose the human living body and its diseases by the use of any physical, chemical, electrical, or thermal method; use of x ray for diagnosing; phlebotomize; and use of any other general method of examination for diagnosis and analysis taught in any school of chiropractic." The Board notes that Veteran's benefits are governed by federal statutes and regulations, not Florida state law. 

The chiropractor assessed that the Veteran experiences tinnitus in both ears. There is currently no objective test for assessing the presence or absence of tinnitus. Therefore, the chiropractor's diagnosis was necessarily based on the Veteran's lay testimony. Generally, a Veteran is competent to report symptoms which are observable by one of the five senses, such as hearing. Therefore, tinnitus is generally diagnosable based on lay testimony. The Board finds, however, that the Veteran's lay testimony is not credible because he has not offered it consistently. 

To determine the nature and cause of his reported tinnitus, the Veteran was afforded an audiological VA examination in January 2025. According to the examiner's report, the Veteran denied tinnitus during the examination. Because the Veteran denied tinnitus symptoms, the examiner refrained from diagnosing that condition.

Upon review, the Veteran has not disputed the examiner's report that he denied experiencing tinnitus. Therefore, the conflict has not been resolved between the chiropractor's positive diagnosis (presumably based on symptom reports by the Veteran) and the audiological examination where the Veteran denied symptoms of tinnitus. Because the Veteran's reports have been inconsistent, those reports cannot hold probative weight.  

Because the claims file evidence does not show a current disability of tinnitus the Board finds that the first element of service connection has not been met. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (the existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (in the absence of evidence of a present disability, there can be no valid claim). 

Because the Veteran has not met the first element of service connection for bilateral tinnitus, his claim must be denied. As shown, the positive and negative evidence are not in approximate balance. Although one medical report is positive and the other is negative, those reports are based on inconsistent presentations by the Veteran. Therefore, he cannot receive benefit of the doubt. See Lynch, supra; Fagan v. Shinseki, 573 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable based on "pure speculation or remote possibility" and "is not a means of reconciling actual conflict or a contradiction in the evidence").

Entitlement to an initial evaluation higher than 70 percent for major depressive disorder with anxious distress is denied.

The Veteran asserts that his service-connected major depressive disorder with anxious distress (currently evaluated at 70 percent from April 29, 2024) should receive an increased rating of 100 percent. VA Form 10182, June 2025. After a thorough review of medical evidence and lay testimony, the Board disagrees. 

On April 29, 2024, VA received a Form 21-0966 Intent to File. In October 2024, VA received a Form 21-526EZ Fully Developed Claim, requesting service connection for a psychiatric disability. Upon review, the Veteran's claim was raised by a timely appeal of the rating decision that assigned the initial evaluation for his service-connected psychiatric disability. See Rating Decision, April 2025; Form 10182, June 2025. Therefore, the current appeal stems from the initial grant of service connection. Accordingly, the period on review begins on the effective date of service connection, which is April 29, 2024. See 38 § U.S.C. 5110(a)(1).

As a matter of initial concern, the Veteran has been assessed with an alcohol use disorder by a private provider. DBQ, September 2024. However, a psychiatric VA examiner did not assess any substance use disorders. C&P Exam, December 2024. During the examination, the Veteran reported "drinking and us[ing] marijuana daily; however, he denied problematic use associated with drinking or using marijuana products. He does not meet criteria for an alcohol use or cannabis use disorder." According to the private provider, the Veteran "now has approximately 6 beers daily, endorsing 2 symptoms of an Alcohol Use Disorder." 

As above, the Veteran's service-connected psychiatric disability does not contemplate any substance use disorders. Although the private provider assessed an alcohol use disorder, the Board is refraining from determining whether such a disorder should be service connected on a secondary basis to any of the Veteran's other service-connected disabilities. Upon review, the record does not show, and the Veteran does not assert, any psychiatric symptoms related to alcohol use. For the provider's part, they did not explain which two symptoms of alcohol use disorder were being demonstrated. 

Moreover, the Board is denying a 100-percent evaluation based on evidence that does not show both total occupational impairment and total social impairment. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 (requiring both total occupational and total social impairment to support a 100-percent evaluation). Because evidence does not show either total social or total occupational impairment, the Board finds that including symptoms of alcohol use disorder (which have not been clarified by the current record) would not result in any meaningful chance for a higher psychiatric evaluation.  

The Veteran's psychiatric disability is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411 (General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders), which provides that:

A 100-percent disability rating is warranted when a psychiatric disorder causes 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; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name.

A 70-percent disability rating is warranted when a psychiatric disorder causes occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; 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; 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); inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.

When determining the appropriate disability evaluation to assign, the Board's primary consideration is the Veteran's symptoms, but it must also make findings as to how those symptoms impact the Veteran's social and occupational impairment. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 118 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). The use of the term "such symptoms as" in the rating criteria demonstrates that the symptoms following that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, and therefore the Board need not find the presence of all, most, or even some of the enumerated symptoms to award a specific rating. See Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 442. Nevertheless, as all ratings in the general rating formula are also associated with objectively observable symptomatology, and the plain language of the regulation makes it clear that the Veteran's impairment must be "due to" those symptoms, a Veteran may only qualify for a given disability by demonstrating the symptoms expressly associated with that percentage or by demonstrating other symptoms with a similar severity, frequency, and duration. Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118.

Pursuant to the Veteran's initial claim for psychiatric benefits, a disability benefits questionnaire (DBQ) was endorsed on September 12, 2024, by a private psychiatric provider. To assess the severity of the Veteran's symptoms, the provider utilized an array of standard evaluation devices, which include: a PCL-5 scored at 29 out of a possible 80; a PHQ-9 that showed "Moderate Major Depression" at 16 out of 27; and a GAD-7 that showed "Moderate Anxiety" at 8 out of 15. 

In an addendum to the DBQ form, the Veteran described sleep impairment to the extent that "he obtains approximately 5[] hours of sleep during typical nights." He also reported "having troubles with dental hygiene." 

He reported experiencing suicidal ideation for the first time "during the early 1990s[.] He explained that the thoughts enter his mind, and he quickly dismisses them, noting that the most recent such occurrence took place approximately six months prior to [the DBQ in September 2024]." Upon review, the Board finds that six months before the DBQ would be in March 2024. As above, the review period did not begin until April 29, 2024. Therefore, the Veteran's DBQ testimony does not establish the experience of suicidal ideation during the review period.  

The provider assessed that the Veteran "was easily engaged in the current evaluation, although he appeared to be quite reticent regarding direct discussions of his military experiences. His appearance was somewhat disheveled, and a slight odor was apparent." The Veteran's "impulse control, as demonstrated by his history of irritability and angry outbursts, appeared to fall below normal limits." The Veteran's affect was blunted, but stable and appropriate for the topic of discussion at all times. The Veteran stated, when asked about his mood at the time of interview, that he felt "okay now." 

On September 12, 2024, the private provider completed a standardized DBQ form. Notably, the provider assessed "[o]ccupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking and/or mood." This assessment supports the Veteran's current 70-percent evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Upon review, the Veteran has not explained why he now disagrees with the assessment in the provider's report, which he himself submitted. The Board should note that the provider explained that they did not review any of the Veteran's medical treatment records when preparing their DBQ. This reduces the probative weight of their evaluation to some degree. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008) (holding that a medical opinion obtains probative weight from "factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion"). Notably, the provider did not assess a traumatic brain injury (TBI) because it was not shown by the records reviewed. However, a TBI would later be assessed during a VA examination in December 2024. 

According to the DBQ form, the Veteran "stated his social functioning declined shortly after his discharge, when he focused his attention on his family but not those outside." During the review period, he "avoid[ed] crowds & other people, preferring the company of his dogs. He also detache[d] himself & [] lost interest in activities."

Regarding occupational function, the Veteran was still working "for the USPS since 1992. He deliberately detache[d] himself from authority figures, with whom he has had marked conflict, & from subordinates. In his role as a supervisor, has had verbal outbursts & 'tried to destroy a machine' in approximately 2021. He perceive[d] most leadership incompetent & coworkers lacking in work ethic." The Board notes that although the Veteran's occupational impairment was sufficient to warrant a 70-percent evaluation, he was still working in a supervisory role for the U.S. Postal Service during the review period. This heavily indicates that a 100-percent evaluation would be inappropriate under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, which requires both total social impairment and total occupational impairment.

According to the DBQ form, the Veteran reported that when he was "angry while driving, [he] ha[d] verbal outbursts & gestures, tailgate[d], cut[] off, & follow[ed] other vehicles. He was formerly abusive to his now-adult children & still ha[d] verbal outbursts, [was] aggressive toward objects, & withdr[ew] at home & work due to behavioral risks."

The provider assessed the following psychiatric symptoms: depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; chronic sleep impairment; mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events; flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; impaired judgment; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting; inability to establish and maintain effective relationships; suicidal ideation; impaired impulse control, such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence; and neglect of personal appearance and hygiene. As above, the Veteran did not actually report suicidal ideation during the appeal period while speaking to the provider.

In December 2024, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination which diagnosed a TBI. However, the examiner assessed that symptoms of the Veteran's TBI cannot be differentiated from his psychiatric symptoms "because of symptom overlap." See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (when filing a claim, a veteran does not seek to receive benefits only for a particular diagnosis, but instead for the symptoms of his disability, however it is described). Notably, the Veteran is service connected for "DC 8045-9434," which includes the diagnostic codes for both "Residuals of traumatic brain injury (TBI)" and "Major depressive disorder." 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, 4.130. After careful review, the Board finds that the Veteran's cognitive or neurological symptoms assessed during his TBI examination do overlap with the mental symptoms shown during his same-day psychiatric examination. 

During the psychiatric examination, the examiner assessed occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. This level of impairment would typically warrant a 50-percent evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. However, the RO previously found that a 70-percent evaluation was warranted, and the Board will not disturb that favorable finding. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c).

Regarding social functioning, the Veteran reported that he has been married to his second wife since 2002: "The couple live together with their two dogs and cat." However, the Veteran reported having "no friends." He also reported "that he is estranged from his family of origin." 

Regarding occupational functioning, the Veteran was "currently employed as a supervisor for the USPS." However, he reportedly "has been verbally reprimanded for losing his temper at work, cussing and yelling at employees. He said, 'They almost convened a threat assessment team because I have anger issues. I don't have a filter.'"

Regarding psychiatric symptoms, the Veteran reported "that he gets approximately 5.5 hours per night when he uses his CPAP machine as prescribed." (He is not currently service-connected for sleep apnea.) He reported that he experiences depressive episodes where he is tearful and emotional. He endorsed anxiety. He endorsed short-term memory deficits, which he reported has progressed over the previous five years. He added that his work performance has declined because he has forgotten things, and his communication skills have deteriorated. He said, "I don't always phrase things correctly, and sometimes that gets me in trouble." He reported a history of anger management issues; however, he reported that his anger has turned into apathy, and he is not violent anymore. He said, "I haven't been violent in four years." He denied current suicidal ideation.

The examiner assessed the following psychiatric symptoms: depressed mood; anxiety; chronic sleep impairment; mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions or recent events; flattened affect; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances, including work or a work like setting; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; and intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living, including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene.

During the examination, the Veteran's "grooming and hygiene were in question. His face was unshaven, and his hair was long and messy. He appeared to be disheveled. He endorsed a history of episodic difficulties maintaining his personal hygiene, including not showering, changing his clothes, and performing other self-care routines." According to the examiner, the Veteran's "mood was dysthymic, and affect was flat. He was tearful throughout the exam."

Upon review, the record includes VA treatment records which further discuss the Veteran's mental health. A nursing note from July 2025 includes a positive depression screening (showing symptoms occurring "More than half the days") but a negative suicidal intent screening. CAPRI, August 2025. The Veteran described his current stress level: "My life is not perfect but not the worst[;] I have some stress but I can handle it."

A primary care mental health note from July 2025 showed the Veteran reporting "multiple interpersonal stressors which have elevated his depressive symptoms." CAPRI, August 2025. He "shared he has experienced stress within the family which has created stressors he is struggling to overcome." Despite "feel[ing] estranged from other family members[, the] Veteran shared he will spend time with his sister." He also "shared his wife is his main support and he does spend time with his sister." Regarding occupational function, he "shared he works [at] night and enjoys his work overall [and] shared he has a supportive boss." A PHQ-9 evaluation indicated moderate depression at 12 out of a possible 27. A GAD-7 evaluation indicated mild anxiety symptoms at five out of a possible 21. He reported five hours of sleep if he uses his CPAP "and does feel rested."  

In addition to medical evidence, the record includes the Veteran's lay symptom testimony. A Form 21-0781 Statement in Support of Claimed Mental Health Disorder includes a checked box for "Episodes of Depression, Panic Attacks, or Anxiety." The Board notes, however, that no other evidence discusses the experience of panic attacks during the appeal period. Because the Veteran specified that he was discussing nightmares and depression, the Board finds that the checked box does not constitute a lay assertion of panic attacks. However, the Veteran described current symptoms of "Anger issues, Depression, & feelings of Guilt." 

After carefully reviewing the record evidence, the Board finds that during the rating period the Veteran's symptom presentation best matches the criteria for his current 70-percent evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. This level of impairment is characterized by occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. 

A 70-percent evaluation is supported by evidence of the following symptoms: impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; and difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances including work or a worklike setting. The private provider in September 2024 assessed "Inability to establish and maintain effective relationships," which is a hallmark criteria for a 70-percent evaluation. However, they also assessed the less severe "Difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships," which is a hallmark of a 50-percent evaluation. As the record has shown, the Veteran's social impairment has been less than total during the review period. See e.g. C&P Exam, December 2024 (assessing only "Difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships"). The record also includes credible evidence of the following: depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; chronic sleep impairment; mild memory loss, such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events; flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; impaired judgment; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships; and difficulty adapting to stressful circumstances, including work, or a worklike setting. Although the DBQ provider assessed suicidal ideation, there is no evidence showing that the Veteran experienced those symptoms during the review period. 

Notably, the VA examiner assessed intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (ADLs), including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene. This is a hallmark symptom of a 100-percent evaluation under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board finds, however, that the Veteran's hygiene deficiencies during the review period do not rise to the level of ADL impairment contemplated by a 100-percent evaluation. As shown, the record shows no impairment related to non-hygiene ADLs such as the Veteran's ability to prepare meals or feed himself. Moreover, the Veteran's hygiene has been consistently suitable enough to maintain employment as a supervisor with the U.S. Postal Service. Therefore, the Board finds that a 100-percent evaluation is not warranted based on the examiner's assessment of intermittent inability to perform ADLs.

Based on the Veteran's symptomatology, the Board finds that the evidence persuasively establishes that his service-connected major depressive disorder with anxious distress is consistent with and reflective of occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. Accordingly, the Veteran's evaluation is confirmed and continued at 70 percent throughout the appeal period. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). 

The Board finds that the Veteran's psychiatric disability does not qualify for an increased rating of 100 percent. To the extent that any symptoms indicative of a 100-percent evaluation have been shown or argued, the Board emphasizes that the criteria for an evaluation of 100 percent requires both total social and occupational impairment. See Melson v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 334 (1991) (use of the conjunctive "and" in a statutory provision meant that all of the conditions listed in the provision must be met); cf. Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 95 (1994) (only one disjunctive "or" requirement must be met in order for an increased rating to be assigned). 

As demonstrated, the Veteran has maintained his employment in a supervisory role with the USPS. Although his psychiatric difficulties are well-established, his occupational impairment during the appeal period has not been total. Along the same lines, the Veteran's ability to interact with coworkers on a predominantly functional level and to maintain his second marriage show that his social impairment does not rise to a total degree, as contemplated by a 100-percent evaluation. Therefore, the Veteran does not qualify for an increased evaluation of 100 percent for his psychiatric disability. 

In conclusion, the Veteran's psychiatric disability cannot receive a rating higher than 70 percent from April 29, 2024. Therefore, his request for an increased rating of 100 percent must be denied. As shown, the positive and negative evidence are not in a state of approximate balance. Therefore, the Veteran cannot receive benefit of the doubt. See Lynch, supra; Fagan, supra.

 

 

Jenna Brant

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J.D. Shoup, Associate 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.