CAVC Case 03-59: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 22, 2005 · 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
BackKneeHipRespiratoryGIEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the examination summary attached to its report, the Medical Board found that the veteran was "poorly motivated for the service and had marked increase in symptoms after being drafted.
Contentions on Appeal The appellant argues for reversal of the September 2002 Board decision; he asserts that the Board erred by failing to consider and apply Akins v.
400(q)(2) (2004) (providing that when previously disallowed claim is reopened and allowed on basis of new and material evidence in form of service department records, effective date is date such disallowed claim was filed).
In evaluating the 1955 RO decision for CUE, the Board concluded that that decision was not the product of CUE because the 1955 RO had determined correctly that the appellant's ulcer had preexisted service and was not aggravated thereby.
564, 574 (1985) (stating that "[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder's choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous" (citing United States v.
Accordingly, the Court holds that, insofar as the 2002 Board concluded that the 1955 RO did not err undebatably to the extent that the RO based its finding of nonaggravation on a lack of increased severity in service of the appellant's preexisting ulcer condition, that decision was not in accordance with law.
The Board determined, in its 2002 decision on appeal, that the RO's conclusion – that the appellant's ulcer condition was not aggravated by service – was reasonable in light of there being no evidence to contradict the findings contained in the Medical Board report.
Specifically, the Board noted that the Medical Board report "contained the conclusion that the [appellant's] ulcer disease was not aggravated by service.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist|Cue
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 →