CAVC Case 20-1421: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2019-10-30 · JAQUITH, 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
Back ConditionService ConnectionHearing Loss
Why It Was Decided This Way
After reviewing the February 2018 examination,the Board denied the appellant service connection for his conditions based on a lack of nexus between the disabilities and service.
The appellant's main argument on appeal is that Board gave inadequate reasons and bases for denying service connection for his disabilities because it failed to make credibility findings regarding his testimony at the June 2017 Board hearing.
He contends that the Board's failure to determine the credibility of his description of an in-service injury treated by a doctor undermined the probative value of the February 2018 VA examination the Board relied upon.
He also contends that the Board's failure to make a credibility determination regarding his description of recurrent back pain on and off throughout his military career, and back problems since then, led to the Board's failure to address presumptive service connection based on continued symptoms.
The Secretary disagrees and argues that the Board provided an adequate statement of reasons or bases for its determination that the veteran's conditions were not service connected,and the Secretary argues that an explicit credibility determination was not required because the testimony was not material to the nexus issue at hand.
Assessing the credibility of a veteran's sworn testimony is a function for the Board in the first instance,not this Court.
One obvious reason the Court defers to the Board's assessment of a witness's credibility is that the Board has had the opportunity to observe the witness firsthand,whereas the Court has not.
The Board noted that a VA examiner in 2012 thought the veteran's conditions might be due to aging,and the Board asked: But you're saying some of your other doctors also said that it could be due to the parachute jumping? R.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not Service Connected|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 →