BVA Case 15-4161: Back
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · NEWMAN
Conditions Claimed
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
BackEyeProstate
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because we conclude that the Board failed to apply its own internal procedures in adjudicating Hudick’s claim and that this error was not harmless, we reverse.
Although it had previously remanded Hudick’s case with clear instructions for the Regional Office to “readju- dicate” his claims based on the M21 Manual and the Compensation Bulletin, in its new decision the Board concluded that remand was “unnecessary.
On the merits, the Board denied Hudick an entitle- ment to service connection for his prostate cancer based on his service in Thailand and Vietnam.
But after examining Hudick’s service records, historical information about his unit, and other information, the Board found that, “[d]espite exhaustive research, there is no evidence to confirm that [Hudick] had in-country service in Vietnam.
First, he argued that “the Board commit- ted prejudicial legal error by failing to analyze the credibility of his lay statements.
As to both arguments, Hudick also argued that the Board failed to adequately explain its conclu- sions.
It concluded that, because “the Board weighed [Hudick’s] statements against the other evidence of record,” this “implie[d] that the Board found [Hudick’s statements] to be credible.
And, even if the Board had erred by not applying the M21 Manual, the Veterans Court went on, “any such error would be non-prejudicial, given that the Board found that the evidence clearly demonstrates that herbicides were not used on any USAF base in Thailand until April 1969, after [Hudick] was at Udorn.
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 →