CAVC Case 16-3447: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2016-08-15 · BARTLEY, 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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricKneeGI
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 ConnectionReopenKnee ConditionPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
In May 2014,the Board denied service connection for PTSD and remanded the GERD claim.
,but opined that the condition was less likely than not related to service because there was no evidence of a chronic abdominal or esophageal condition in service and no evidence of treatment,including with over-the-counter medications,until 2008,R.
The appellant timely appealed the denial of service connection for GERD,and the Court in November 2015 granted a JMPR specifying that the Board had not adequately assessed the credibility of the lay evidence of record.
Instead,the Board found most probative the April 2014 VA medical examination that concluded that GERD was less likely than not related to in-service gastrointestinal complaints.
The appellant first argues that the Board provided inadequate reasons or bases for its assessment of the credibility and probative value of favorable evidence.
Specifically,he asserts 6 that the Board improperly discounted his lay statements of being attacked in a blanket party as inconsistent,did not adequately explain how his and his wife's demeanor at the hearing impugned the credibility of their testimony,and otherwise failed to lay a proper foundation for finding lay evidence of behavior changes not probative.
To comply with this requirement,the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of evidence,account for evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive,and provide reasons for rejecting any material evidence favorable to the claimant.
When assessing the credibility of lay evidence,the Board may consider factors such as facial plausibility,bias,self-interest,and consistency with other evidence of record.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →