CAVC Case 05-2475: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · November 22, 2006 · 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
PTSDBackHeartEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
In its August 26, 2005, decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD.
APPLICABLE LAW To support a claim for service connection for PTSD, a claimant must present evidence of (1) a current diagnosis of PTSD; (2) credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor actually occurred; and (3) medical evidence of a causal nexus between the current symptomatology and the claimed in-service stressor.
at 143), the Secretary's duty to assist is heightened.
362, 369-71 (2005)(when service medical records are presumed lost or destroyed VA's duty to assist is heightened); Moore v.
The Board's findings concerning combat status and the sufficiency of corroborative evidence are findings of fact that the Court reviews under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review pursuant to 38 U.
A factual finding 'is "clearly erroneous" when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
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.
Although the appellant claims that he was part of a Forward Observer Team, assisted in and watched the direction of lethal fire upon the enemy, and was himself fired upon by the enemy, the Board found that the record does not support a finding that the veteran engaged in combat while on active duty.
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 →