BVA Case 04-0338: Back
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · NEWMAN
Conditions Claimed
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 |
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
BackAnkleEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
2007-7060 2 In May 1995, Jennings filed an application that was construed by the VA as an attempt to reopen his claim for service connection on new and material evidence grounds.
Although the RO denied Jennings’s claim to reopen, the Board found that Jennings’s testimony constituted new and material evidence and directed the RO to reopen the claim.
On November 7, 2003, the Board found no CUE in the 1954 decisions.
As to the first prong, the Board found that “the RO’s decisions were in accordance with the applicable laws and regulations, and that the evidence of record adequately supported the decisions.
The Board noted that the RO had considered the presumptions of soundness and aggravation, and that there was an evidentiary basis for concluding that those presumptions were rebutted.
The Board found no evidence in the 1954 record of “an opinion relating the veteran’s ulcerative colitis to his service,” and noted that Dr.
Finally, the Board noted that even assuming the RO committed some error, it would not have “manifestly changed the result” because “there was no evidence of record that the veteran’s ulcerative colitis was incurred or aggravated during his service.
First, Jennings contends that the Board erred in failing to specifically refer to the “clear and unmistakable evidence” standard for rebutting the presumptions of soundness and aggravation.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|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 →