CAVC Case 04-743: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 19, 2006 · HAGEL
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
BackHipGIEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Locklear appeals through counsel an April 12, 2004, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision wherein the Board denied service connection for a chest disability.
First, he asserts that the Board failed to consider all evidence and potential issues.
Next, he contends that the Board failed to offer adequate reasons or bases for rejecting his account of pain.
Finally, he contends that VA breached its duty to assist by not providing him with a VA medical examination.
Locklear has pain, "[t]he absence of a nexus was fatal to th[e] claim.
It follows that Board findings regarding VA's compliance with the duty to notify are findings of fact that the Court reviews under the clearly erroneous standard.
A factual finding is clearly erroneous "when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with a definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Next, the Board concluded that "[t]he letter gave notice of what evidence the veteran needed to submit and what evidence VA would try to obtain and notified the veteran of the evidence that the [regional office] had obtained and considered.
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 →