Citation Nr: A26041019 Decision Date: 04/30/26 Archive Date: 04/30/26 DOCKET NO. 250506-543917 DATE: April 30, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's symptoms did not more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9411. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from May 2007 to October 2015. This matter comes before the Board on a March 2025 rating decision. In the May 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence which 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 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. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD is denied. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule). 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Rating Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of, or incident to, military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the Rating Schedule. If two disability ratings are potentially applicable, the higher rating will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. In view of the number of atypical instances, it is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the specified findings. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. It is the defined and consistently applied policy of VA to administer the law under a broad interpretation, consistent, however, with the facts shown in every case. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability is resolved in favor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. PTSD is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, DC 9411. Under this diagnostic code, a 30 percent evaluation is assigned for 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 conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, and mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). Id. A 50 percent evaluation is for assignment when there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms 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; difficulty establishing effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent evaluation is contemplated for 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 work-like setting; inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent evaluation is warranted when there is evidence of 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 and place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or name. Id. When determining the appropriate disability evaluation to assign, the Board's primary consideration is a veteran's symptoms, but it must also make findings as to how those symptoms impact a veteran's occupational and social impairment. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 118 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). Because the use of the term "such as" in the rating criteria demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, the Board need not find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms to award a specific rating. Mauerhan, 16 Vet. App. at 442; Sellers v. Principi, 372 F.3d 1318, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Nevertheless, 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 particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration. Vazquez-Claudio, 713 F.3d at 118. Here, the Veteran's medical records show that in May 2024 he endorsed "chronic moderate anxiety" and a positive PTSD screening showed nightmares, intrusive thoughts, hypervigilance, and feelings of numbness, detachment, and guilt. However, May 2024 medical records also contain a negative suicide screening and a negative depression screening. In June 2024, the Veteran reported ongoing symptoms of intrusive thoughts, frequently feeling "on edge," hyperarousal, anger outbursts, chronic sleep impairment, irritability, and being socially avoidant as well as avoiding crowds and public environments. It was noted that, aside from the "inability to sleep," the Veteran's biggest concern was "constantly feeling angry." The Veteran stated he had "a hard time managing his emotions and internal anger when encountering interpersonal conflict or disagreements with people." The Veteran reported his work as a banker often caused such feelings to increase. The Veteran stated he enjoyed hobbies such as golfing, fishing, spending time outdoors, and sports betting. He denied any depression or sadness, reported intermittent loss of interest in activities "but nothing persistent," and denied any decrease in energy or suicidal ideation. The Veteran was negative for anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, a panic disorder, mania, or psychosis. The Veteran reported having one brother whom he spoke with and was on "okay terms" with, he was remarried with a 9-year-old son from his previous marriage. The Veteran was "dressed in clean casual clothing," with good grooming and hygiene. His behavior was described as calm and cooperative with good eye contact noted. His speech was regular in rhythm, rate, and volume. He showed no signs of psychomotor agitation or slowing. His mood was content and his affect was "euthymic" and "congruent with [his] mood." His thought process was "linear, logical, and goal-directed," and his thought content exhibited no delusions. He denied any audio or visual hallucinations, was oriented to person, time, and place, and his insight and judgment were good. In August 2024, the Veteran reported current symptoms of: anger; anxiety; panic attacks; nightmares; intrusive thoughts; avoiding people and crowds; viewing others as less reliable and "stupid"; worrying about his reactions; increased irritability; catastrophic thinking; and hypervigilance. He denied any suicidal ideation or intent and his medical records contain a negative suicide screening. The Veteran was "dressed in clean causal clothing," with good grooming and hygiene. His behavior was described as calm and cooperative with good eye contact noted. His speech was regular in rhythm, rate, and volume. He showed no signs of psychomotor agitation or slowing. His mood was "okay" and his affect was "euthymic" and "congruent with [his] mood." His thought process was "linear, logical, and goal-directed," and his insight and judgment were good. He was oriented to person, time, and place; his thought content exhibited no delusions; and he denied any audio or visual hallucinations. In March 2025, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. The VA examiner continued a diagnosis of PTSD and found the Veteran experienced "[o]ccupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation." The Veteran reported living with his spouse of eight years and sharing custody of his son. His social support consisted of his spouse and friends. He engaged in leisure activities such as golfing. He was employed as vice-president relation manager for a bank and had held that job for about two years at the time of the examination. The Veteran reported that, since leaving the military, he had never been fired due to "unsatisfactory performance or misconduct" nor had ever been "reprimanded in writing for misconduct in the workplace." The veteran reported mental health treatment, including ongoing individual therapy and psychiatric treatment. He reported no psychiatric hospitalizations, no suicide attempts, and denied any current suicidal or homicidal thoughts, intent, or plans. The Veteran reported the following symptoms: frequent sadness; disinterest in pleasurable activities; social disinterest and withdrawal; feeling distant from people; worry; feelings of apprehension; nervousness; feeling social discomfort (especially in crowded and public settings); irritability; distrust of others; feeling on guard all the time; episodes of intense anxiety which cause the physical sensations of fear; nightmares; trouble falling asleep; trouble maintaining sleep; frequent forgetfulness; impaired concentration; and inattention. The examiner recorded symptoms of depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks occurring weekly or less often, chronic sleep impairment, and mild memory loss. It was noted the Veteran's appearance and eye contact were "within normal limits." His affect and mood were "congruent," and his attention and concentration were "within normal limits." His social appropriateness, receptive and expressive languages, and his thought content were all "within normal limits." The Veteran was found to be capable of managing his financial affairs, and the Veteran "showed no signs of a primary thought disorder or communication problem." Based on the foregoing, the Board finds the evidence of record does not show the Veteran experiences occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The Veteran maintains relationships with his wife and son. He also maintains friendships and regularly engages in hobbies and leisure activities. The Veteran maintained employment with the same employer at a senior level for over two years. Since separating from the military, the Veteran has never been fired or reprimanded at work due to misconduct or unsatisfactory performance. He maintains his hygiene and personal appearance, and there is no evidence of an inability to perform activities of daily living. Likewise, there is no evidence that the Veteran experiences difficulty understanding complex commands, impaired judgment or abstract thinking, disturbances of motivation and mood, or difficulty establishing or maintaining effective work and social relationships. As such, considering the Veteran's disability picture as a whole, the frequency, severity, and duration of the Veteran's PTSD symptoms most closely approximate 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 conversation normal). Therefore, entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for PTSD is denied. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application.?See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mills, D. 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.