CAVC Case 03-0221: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2002-10-07 · MOORMAN, Judge
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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricHearing LossTDIUEye
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
SMCService ConnectionEffective DateReopenTDIUHearing LossPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant's request for revision on the basis that the 1971 Board failed to consider the possible application of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU), an extraschedular rating, secondary service connection, special monthly compensation, and aid and attendance and housebound benefits; and vacate the October 2002 decision to the extent that the Board denied the appellant.
The appellant's request for revision on the basis that the 1971 Board failed to consider entitlement to a 10% disability rating pursuant to 38 C.
The Board determined that [t]he evidence shows that the nervous disorder noted in service was manifested by symptoms of personality trait disturbances which are not diseases or injuries under the provisions of applicable legislation.
rrect facts before it because the only examiner who performed a postservice psychiatric examination did not consider a diagnosis of PTSD; and (3) that the statutory and regulatory provisions extant at the time were incorrectly applied because the medical examiner did not provide adequate reasons and bases for his conclusion that the appellant.
Furthermore, the Board determined that the failure of VA to obtain this evidence in 1971, as well as the Board's reliance on the VA examination, both arguments that VA failed its duty to assist, was not a basis for CUE.
On September 18, 2000, the Board denied the request for revision, determining that the appellant.
Finally, in the event that the Board failed to award the benefit sought, the appellant.
The appellant's argument that he should have been diagnosed with PTSD at the time of his VA examination in 1970 amounts to an argument that he was afforded a faulty medical examination, and that such an alleged breach of the duty to assist could not be grounds for revision on the basis of CUE.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam|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 →