CAVC Case 13-3507: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2013-07-02 · KASOLD, 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
PsychiatricHeadacheSkinDiabetes
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 Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant argues that the Board erred in its (1)threshold determination that she was not credible,and (2) determinations to deny benefits.
n finding that there was evidence of possible organic impairment,impaired reliability,and a lack of credibility,and (4) provided an inadequate statement of reasons and bases for its adverse credibility determination.
The appellant's statements from a February 2011 Board hearing that she reported in-service headaches and foot problems for which she was issued inserts,but the Board found no service records of any such reports,with the exception of an in-service hospitalization for headaches in May 1987,and noted that 1988 medical records reflect that the appellant.
The Board found,however,that there is no indication in the appellant.
The appellant would have sought treatment because of the significance of her disabilities and that her medical records would have contained evidence of that treatment;rather,the Board found that the appellant.
362,367 (2005)(noting that the Board has the duty to determine the credibility and probative value of the evidence); see also United States v.
The appellant's allegations regarding in-service foot problems,headaches,and diabetes were inconsistent with the record evidence is plausible and not clearly erroneous.
49,52 (1990)( 'A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it,the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →