BVA Case 08-1951: Back
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · BRYSON
Conditions Claimed
BackHearing LossHipEyeRadiculopathy
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
BackHearing LossHipEyeRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
Al- though it acknowledged that he was exposed to mortar fire and had been treated for malaria while in service, the board noted that “the earliest clinical recording of hearing impairment was by [Reeves’] private physician in Novem- 1 The government has been unable to produce cop- ies of Reeves’ service medical records, explaining that they may have been destroyed in a 1973 fire at the Na- tional Personnel Records Center.
” The board concluded that the hearing loss that had been documented in 1962 was “too remote from [Reeves’] active service” to be caused by either his expo- sure to mortar fire or treatment for malaria while in service.
§ 5108 (providing that a claim will be reopened “if new and material evidence is presented or secured”).
Accordingly, the board determined that the record contained sufficient evidence to establish that Reeves’ hearing impairment was in- curred during his military service.
” It noted that in evaluating whether there was a nexus between Reeves’ in-service injury and his subsequent hearing disability, the board reached a conclusion on nexus which might have been “based on the expertise of one of the three signatory Board members, who was a Medical Doctor.
” While relying upon the medical expertise of a board member would be “highly improper” under current law, the board determined that “current standards [were] not applicable” in the context of a claim alleging CUE in an earlier board decision.
” She further asserts that the board erred by failing to “resolve every REEVES v.
In response, the government acknowledges that the 1983 board failed to apply the section 1154(b) presump- tion.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|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 →