38 C.F.R. § 4.129
Mental disorders due to traumatic stress
When a mental disorder that develops in service as a result of a highly stressful event is severe enough to bring about the veteran's release from active military service, the rating agency shall assign an evaluation of not less than 50 percent and schedule an examination within the six month period following the veteran's discharge to determine whether a change in evaluation is warranted.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 20
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1991–2023 · leading case: Martinez v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 176 (Fed. Cl. 2010).
Martinez v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 176 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “Plaintiff instituted this action in April of 2009, contending that the Army was required to rate his PTSD as 50% at the time of his discharge pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 . 4 Compl. ¶¶ 21-23. Section 4.”
Stine v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “Stine’s counsel’s contention that 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 required Mr. Stine to have been assigned a rating of over 50% because PTSD itself was not found to be an unfitting condition by either the IPEB or CORB.”
Blair Coleman v. Frank Kendall, 74 F.4th 610 (4th Cir. 2023). “” 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 . The VA must then examine the servicemember within six months “to determine whether a change in evaluation is warranted.”
Sabo v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 606 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “38 C.F.R. § 4.129 (2002). 6 And, VASRD § 4.”
Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “38 C.F.R. § 4.129 (emphasis added). Plaintiffs claim that the Service Branches did not comply with this regulation, as they were required to do by the statutes and regulations cited above.”
Petri v. United States, 104 Fed. Cl. 537 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “The October 14, 2008 “Policy Memorandum on Implementing Disability-Related Provisions of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2008,” provided that: The Military Department Secretary concerned will abide by 10 USC 1216a and 38 CFR 4.129, VASRD [Veterans Administration…”
Edison B. Locklear v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 311 (Vet. App. 2011). “at 2123 (citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.129 , 4.130 (1986) (taking the claimant’s “social and industrial adaptability” into consideration when assigning a rating for mental health disorders)); see also 38 C.”
Karnas v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 308 (Vet. App. 1991). “This query arises because 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 (1990) specifies that “social inadaptability is to be evaluated only as it affects industrial adaptability.”
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “38 C.F.R. § 4.129 (2006). 5 Proceedings in this case were subsequently stayed to permit plaintiff to seek relief before the Physical Disability Board of Review (“PDBR”).”
Bruce W. Pierce v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 440 (Vet. App. 2004). “Prior to that revision, which eliminated that word “inadaptability”, 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 (1996) related “social inadaptability” to “abnormalities of conduct, judgment, and emotional reactions which affect economic adjustment, i.”
Webster v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 155 (Vet. App. 1991). “Furthermore, 38 C.F.R. § 4.129 (1990) states: Social integration is one of the best evidences of mental health and reflects the ability to establish (together with a desire to establish) healthy and effective interpersonal relationships.”
Baker v. West, 11 Vet. App. 163 (Vet. App. 1998). “38 C.F.R. §§ 4.129 , 4.132, Part 4, Codes 9203, 9411.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.