CAVC Case 03-0106: Eye
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2002-07-25 · STEINBERG
This is a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the federal court that reviews Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions, one level above the Board. Court decisions can vacate, reverse, or affirm what the Board did.
Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.
Dependent add-ons start at a 30% rating. Child-only and dependent-parent rates: see the full 2026 pay chart.
2026 base rates, all ratings (veteran alone)
| Rating | Monthly (2026, incl. 2.8% COLA) |
|---|---|
| 10% | $180.42 |
| 20% | $356.66 |
| 30% | $552.47 |
| 40% | $795.84 |
| 50% | $1,132.90 |
| 60% | $1,435.02 |
| 70% | $1,808.45 |
| 80% | $2,102.15 |
| 90% | $2,362.30 |
| 100% | $3,938.58 |
Conditions Claimed
Referral disclosure: VetAid earns a referral fee if you become a paying REE Medical client through this link — it helps keep this site free. REE Medical provides paid medical evidence; it is not a law firm, VSO, or claims agent, and VetAid has not independently verified its services. VSOs and VA-accredited representatives will help you file your claim at no cost, and no one can guarantee a rating increase.
Issues on Appeal
Service ConnectionEffective DateReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
connection for retinitis pigmentosa (RP)contained clear and unmistakable error (CUE)and (2) that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen the appellant's previously and finally disallowed claim for service connection for RP.
at 243-44);the RO apparently construed that statement as a claim to reopen his RP service-connection 2 - � claim,and sent him a letter explaining that new and material evidence was required (R.
On appeal,the appellant appears to argue that the Court should reverse the July 2002 BVA decision on the grounds that (1)the Board erred in concluding that the 1990 May RO had not clearly and unmistakably erred in finding that the appellant's RP preexisted service and was not aggravated by service,and (2)that the Board erred in concluding that new and material evidence was not presented after 1990 (the Board had used the August 1998 RO decision as the benchmark from which to determine whether such new and material evidence had been submitted,R.
The Secretary argues (1)that the Board erred by denying rather than dismissing the CUE claim and that the Court should therefore vacate that portion ofthe July 2002 BVA decision on appeal and remand the CUE matter so that the Board may dismiss the CUE claim without prejudice,and (2)that the Board's conclusion that new and material evidence had not been presented to reopen his RP service-connection claim was not clearly erroneous,and that the Court should therefore affirm that portion of the BVA decision.
400(q)(2) (2004) (providing that when previously disallowed claim is reopened and allowed on basis of new and material evidence in form ofservice department records,effective date is date such disallowed claim was filed).
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value ofthe evidence,account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide the reasons for its rejection ofany material evidence favorable to the claimant.
In that 7 - - analysis,however,the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its conclusion that the RO did not err in determining that the appellant's RP preexisted service.
Specifically,the Board failed to discuss whether the RO had determined preexistence of the appellant's RP according to the applicable evidentiary standard - clear and unmistakable evidence.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against|Cue
Find Similar Decisions for Your Claim
VetAid's analyzer maps your claim against thousands of real Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions like this one — surfacing the exact case law that supports your arguments.
Run my claim through VetAid →