CAVC Case 08-0404: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2008-01-09 · MOORMAN, 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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackArthritisFibromyalgia
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
Service ConnectionPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
393 (1998), the Board determined that medical evidence of a nexus between PTSD and the claimed stressor alone is insufficient to establish that the claimed inservice stressor actually occurred.
In the joint motion for remand,the parties agreed VA failed to consider and apply pertinent caselaw relevant to the appeal in that the 2005 Board finding that the appellant was not credible was made in the first instance without determining whether the appellant had received adequate notice of the need to submit evidence in support of her credibility and whether she would be prejudiced by the Board addressing the issue for the first time in its decision.
The Board found that the appellant was not credible and that the evidence demonstrated she did not undergo personal assault during active duty service.
Accordingly, the Board denied service connection for PTSD.
The Secretary requests that the Court affirm the Board's January 2008 decision because there is a plausible basis in the record to support the denial,the decision is not clearly erroneous,and the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases.
Credibility Determination The appellant argues that the Board clearly erred in determining that she was not credible, and,hence,erred in denying her service connection for PTSD.
The credibility of the appellant is critical in this case, because the majority of evidence presented in the appellant's favor,as to the asserted in-service assaults,is derived solely from her testimony and statements.
5 (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.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected
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 →