CAVC Case 10-3273: Eye
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2010-07-30 · 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
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.
Why It Was Decided This Way
In October 2009,the 5 examiner opined that the appellant's macular degeneration was less likely than not related to his military service,including RFR.
In the decision here on appeal,the Board denied disability compensation for macular degeneration and B-MALT as a result of exposure to nonionizing radiation.
Although the appellant's service records confirmed his duties as a radar operator,the Board found that the record contained no evidence of ionizing radiation exposure or the claimed high levels or even low levels of RFR exposure.
Additionally, in determining that the preponderance of the evidence was against the appellant's claim, the Board found Dr.
The Parties'Arguments On appeal,the appellant argues that the Board erred when it found no evidence of in-service exposure to ionizing or nonionizing radiation and rejected the appellant's lay evidence as not credible regarding his proximity to radar equipment.
The appellant also argues that VA failed to fulfill its duty to assist,the Board ignored evidence indicating that radar systems emit both ionizing and nonionizing radiation, and the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases to deny his claims.
He argues that the Board erred when it failed to require development of his claim based on exposure to ionizing as well as nonionizing radiation,and argues that remand is required for an additional search of local unit and installation records,which the Air Force memoranda indicated might contain records of occupational radiation exposure.
To the extent that the appellant challenges the Board's dismissal of lay evidence as not credible,the Secretary contends that the Board merely found the evidence not credible as to nexus,and not as to his proximity to radar equipment in service.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →