BVA Case 19-4116: PTSD
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · NEWMAN
Conditions Claimed
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUEye
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
PTSDDepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackSkinTDIUEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Thus, the Court finds that the Board erred when it failed to address his contention that he has unad- judicated pending claims for service connection for generalized anxiety and major depressive disorder dating back to 1997.
The statement and remand also reflect the court’s finding that those claims were before the Board in 2019 and that the Board erred in failing to consider them.
Bean contended before the Board that he had unadjudicated pending claims for ser- vice-connected generalized anxiety and major depressive disorder and that the Board erred when it failed to address those claims.
Bean on appeal—“whether the Board erred in failing to address whether he had unadjudicated, pending claims for generalized anxiety and major depres- sive disorder dating back to 1997.
Thus, the Court does not possess jurisdiction over the issue raised by the appellant in his brief—specifically whether the Board erred in failing to address whether the appellant had unadjudicated, pending claims for service connection for generalized anxiety and major depressive disorder dating back to 1997.
Bean argues that the Veterans Court erred in holding that it lacked jurisdiction to consider the issue that he raised on appeal, that issue being whether the Board erred in failing to address whether he had unad- judicated pending claims for generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder dating back to 1997.
He presented the assertion to the Board, he says, but the Board failed to address it.
The govern- ment then states that, in its May 2019 decision, the Board found that the filing could not be a “motion for reconsider- ation, revision, or vacatur” of the Board’s May 2012 deci- sion because it did not meet the requirements for such a motion.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Unclassified
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 →