BVA Case 10-3387: Depression
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · NEWMAN
Conditions Claimed
DepressionBackHeadacheEyeArthritis
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
DepressionBackHeadacheEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
Depatment of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) had met its duty to assist Mr.
Tucker argued that the Board erred in determining that the VA satisfied its duty to assist because the Board did not determine the reason for his discharge and it failed to obtain a medical nexus opinion.
The Veterans Court affirmed the Board’s judgment because it concluded that the Board did not err when it determined that the VA had satisfied its duty to assist Mr.
The Board determined that the VA had satisfied its duty to assist Mr.
Tucker and that the preponderance of the evidence was against his claim for service connection for MS.
Tucker argued that the VA failed to satisfy its duty to assist by: (1) not determining the basis for his discharge, making it impossible for him to determine “whether there are additional service personnel, medical, or other service department record[s] which may be relevant”; and (2) failing to obtain a VA examination or medical nexus opinion.
The Veterans Court noted that the VA’s duty to assist extends only to relevant records that are sufficiently identified by the claimant.
Tucker had failed to demon- strate that the Board clearly erred in finding that the VA satisfied its duty to assist.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
No Nexus|Preponderance Against|Duty To Assist
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 →