BVA9505006 DOCKET NO. 93-03 226 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder, currently evaluated as 10 percent disabling. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from January 1966 to September 1968. This matter came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 1992 rating decision from the St. Petersburg, Florida, Regional Office (RO). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL It is contended that the veteran's disability is more severe than currently evaluated. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the evidence supports a 100 percent evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the appeal has been obtained. 2. Post-traumatic stress disorder is productive of total industrial impairment. CONCLUSION OF LAW Post-traumatic stress disorder is 100 percent disabling. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.7, 4.59, Part 4, Code 9411 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION We note that the veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). We find that he has presented a claim that is plausible. There is no indication of additional outstanding evidence. No further assistance to the veteran is required to comply with the duty to assist the veteran mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107. Disability evaluations are based upon the average impairment of earning capacity as contemplated by a schedule for rating disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). Although the VA must consider the entire record, because of effective date, law and regulations, the most pertinent evidence is those documents created in proximity to the recent claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 1991). Unlike certain physical disorders that have clear-cut manifestations that either meet or do not meet the schedular criteria, the evaluation of psychiatric disorders involves a significant degree of judgment. Impairment of social adaptability, in itself, the history and complaints provided by the veteran, or the characterization of the severity of impairment by a examiner or treating physician is not determinative. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.126, 4.129, 4.130 (1994). It must be shown that industrial impairment is the result of actual manifestations of the service-connected psychiatric disorder. The severity of a psychiatric disability is based upon actual symptomatology, as it affects social and industrial adaptability. Two of the most important determinants of disability are time lost from gainful employment and decrease in work efficiency. 38 C.F.R. § 4.30 (1994). The differences among mild impairment, definite impairment, considerable impairment, severe impairment, and total impairment are matters of degree. 38 C.F.R. Code 9411. The determination of the appellant's degree of impairment is one of fact. The competing legal principles involved in this case are; (a) totally impaired veterans are entitled to a 100 percent evaluation; (b) severely impaired veterans are entitled to seventy percent disability; (c) those considerably impaired are entitled to fifty percent; (d) those with less impairment are entitled to thirty or ten percent evaluations. The Board's task is to sift through the evidence, analyze it, and apply it to one of the legal principles stated above. It is analogous to what a jury does in a trial. Put another way the degree of impairment is necessarily a factual determination, the conclusion flowing from that fact, a legal determination. See Lovelace v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 73, 74 (1990). When all the evidence is assembled, the Secretary, is then responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). In this case, there is no negative evidence. According to P. O'Connell, M.D., the veteran is markedly withdrawn, severely anxious, severely depressed, and has severe post-traumatic stress disorder. Other manifestations included obsessive preoccupation and somatization The veteran was considered to be not employable. This evidence has not been rebutted. A social worker noted that the disability had a profound affect on the veteran's ability to carry on social relationships and prevents active employment. The veteran demonstrated isolatory and withdrawal behavior, extreme states of hypervigalence, and severe startle reaction. According to a VA social worker, the veteran had severe anxiety, feelings of depression, and hopelessness. The global assessment of functioning was 45, and the prognosis was poor. According to the VA examiner, in May 1992, the veteran had markedly diminished interest in significant activities, confusion, difficulty concentrating, and restricted range of affect, "very much so." A private doctor and two social workers have entered detailed reports with their opinions that the veteran is unable to work. The VA examiner, in 1992, did not enter an opinion in regard to the veteran's ability to work. However, nothing in his report contradicts the other evidence of record. Based upon the current evidence of record, there is no indication that the veteran is able to work at this time. Accordingly, the evidence supports the claim and a 100 percent evaluation is warranted. Johnson v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 95 (1994). ORDER A 100 percent evaluation for post-traumatic stress disorder is granted, subject to the controlling regulations applicable to the payment of monetary benefits. H. N. SCHWARTZ Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.