CAVC Case 10-2393: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · · Unknown
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackSkinEye
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackSkinEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board determined that AZ’s service records “do not show any complaints, treatment or diagnosis for any psychiatric disorder or any reports of injuries from a personal assault during service,” id.
However, the Board found that “service treatment records and the report of examination prior to separation show no complaints or findings indicative of a psychiatric prob- lem,” and that “[r]ecords from service do not document any in service assault.
Relying on the absence of service records of the assault, records of a disciplinary problem predating the alleged assault, a service medical record indicating AZ “plann[ed] on getting married,” documentation of possible post-service stressors such as unemployment, and other evidence, the Board concluded that “the evidence of record is insufficient to confirm that the [alleged assault] occurred.
The Board found that these omissions contradict- ed the lay statements, and moreover, that AY’s “service records appear[ed] to be inconsistent with her reports and AZ v.
Citing inconsistencies in AY’s accounts of the alleged assault, service records commending AY’s duty performance and “cheerful demeanor,” and other evi- dence, the Board determined that “the evidence is insuffi- cient to confirm the occurrence of [the alleged sexual] assault.
Thus, [a]lthough AY submitted statements regarding the [alleged assault] and lay witnesses submitted statements regarding her demeanor after the [al- leged assault], the Board found them inconsistent with other evidence in the record and therefore not credible.
The Board found that these lay statements “lack[ed] credibility absent confirmatory clinical records to substantiate such recollections” of the veteran’s in-service symptoms.
In Buczynski, the Veterans Court ruled that the Board erred in basing its determination that a veteran’s skin condition was “not exceptionally repug- nant” on the absence of a medical record documenting such a condition: [T]here [was not] any medical reason why a doctor would be expected to comment on the repugnance of [the veteran’s] condition.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility
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 →