CAVC Case 18-2837: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2018-05-21 · ALLEN, 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.
Issues on Appeal
Service ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the Board did not ensure that VA satisfied its duty to assist and failed to provide an adequate statement of its reasons or bases for denying appellant's claims, we will set aside the Board's decision and remand these matters to the Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.
ANALYSIS Appellant argues that the Board erred in finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist,because it failed to ensure that his service records were obtained.
In addition, appellant contends that the Board erred in finding that he had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his skin disorder and loss of vision claims where evidence of record showed treatment for a skin condition and a private doctor commented on his eye condition's relationship to service.
The Secretary concedes that remand is required because in declining to reopen appellant's skin disorder claim,the Board failed to account for evidence of a current skin disability.
Duty To Assist and Service Records VA must make reasonable efforts to assist a claimant in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate the claimant's claim for a benefit.
6 We review the Board's determination that VA satisfied its duty to assist under the clearly erroneous standard of review.
8 A factual finding is clearly erroneous when the Court is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
The Board failed to note that the June 2013 formal finding discussed only the appellant's period of service from January 1991 to July 1991 but said nothing of his earlier period of service from January 1983 to April 1983.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →