CAVC Case 06-7279: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2005-09-01 · SCHOELEN, 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
BackHeadacheSkinErectile Dysfunction
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
Back ConditionService ConnectionReopenIncreased Rating
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant , through counsel, appeals a BOOKMARK/ September 1, 2005, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision in which the Board denied his claims for service connection for a headache condition, erectile dysfunction, and memory loss, and found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen claims for service connection for a skin condition of the lips and for a low back disability.
at 150-52), and in May 2001, the Board denied his attempt to reopen the back condition claim (R.
The letter informed him that in order to reopen the back disability claim, he would need to submit new and material evidence, and also requested that he should submit various forms of evidence to support his other claims.
309(a) (2003) (regarding chronic medical conditions), and was not service connected on a direct basis.
The Board noted that the appellant was provided notice of the VCAA prior to the initial adjudication of his claims, referring to a letter issued to the appellant in March 2003.
The Board found the March 2003 letter addressed all pertinent elements of the appellant's service-connection claim, and that the letter provided sufficient notice of how to provide new and material evidence to reopen the previously denied claims.
Further discussing VA's obligations, the Board found that VA satisfied its duty to assist by gathering all possible relevant evidence and providing several medical examinations (R.
Turning to the merits of the claims, the Board concluded that the appellant was not entitled to service connection for a headache condition, erectile dysfunction, or a memory loss condition.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not Service Connected|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
Find Similar Decisions 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 →