BVA Case 19-2640: PTSD
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · STOLL
Conditions Claimed
PTSDPsychiatricBackSleep ApneaHipAnkleHeadacheSkinTDIUEye
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackSleep ApneaHipAnkleHeadacheSkin
Why It Was Decided This Way
Gudinas challenges the DVA’s determination of the effective date for his 100 percent rating, arguing that his 2015 submission regarding PTSD constituted new and material evidence re- garding a 2014 claim he made for sleep apnea.
156(b), he was entitled to an effective date of May 30, 2014, because his October 2015 submission constituted new and material evidence relating to his May 2014 claim for sleep apnea.
Gudinas’s contention that he was entitled to an earlier effective date for his 100-percent PTSD rating on the ground that his May 30, 2014, claim for sleep apnea was not related to his PTSD claim.
Gudinas argued that the Board erred by failing to address whether the October 2015 submissions constituted new and material evidence relating to the May 2014 claim.
156(b) of the DVA’s regulations provides as follows: New and material evidence received prior to the ex- piration of the appeal period, or prior to the appel- late decision if a timely appeal has been filed .
156(b) requires the DVA to expressly assess whether a claim presents new and material evidence relating to a prior claim that was filed within the time limits described in the regulation, even if those two claims have no apparent relationship.
156(b) required that her back condition be treated as “new and material evidence” regarding her ankle condition, and that the two claims should therefore be given the same effective date.
156(b) and because the court did not address the relationship between the terms “claim” and “benefit” in 38 C.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material
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 →