CAVC Case 03-1828: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 2, 2005 · GREENE, Chief 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
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
PTSDBackHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The matter was returned to the Board in June 2002, and again the Board denied Mr.
Rather, the Board determined that there must be some "credible independent evidence sufficient to corroborate the allegation.
The Board concluded, therefore, that the weight of the credible evidence of record established that Mr.
Specifically, he alleges that the Board failed to comply with the Court's February 2003 remand order when it rejected his statements of his in-service symptoms as not probative.
The Secretary argues that the Court should affirm the Board's decision because it was not clearly erroneous.
ANALYSIS The Board's determination of service connection is a question of fact that the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review set forth in 38 U.
The Court must set aside a finding of material fact as clearly erroneous when the Court, after reviewing the entire evidence of record, "is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
To comply with this requirement, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist
Find Similar Precedent 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 →