BVA Case 20-4075: PTSD
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · TARANTO
Conditions Claimed
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
PTSDBackHeadacheHeartTDIUEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Be- cause the Veterans Court properly interpreted the new and material evidence rule in 38 C.
She argued that her 1999 TDIU claim was still pending because she submitted addi- tional evidence within the one-year appeal window of her claim being denied, but she never received a determination about whether this evidence was new and material to the 1999 TDIU claim.
Hampton identified the following ev- idence as new and material: (1) her May 1999 statement, where she stated her migraines had worsened and for which the RO opened a new claim for increased compensa- tion, and (2) a May 19993 Department of Veterans Affairs 3 Ms.
Hampton argued she was entitled to an explicit new and material evidence de- termination for this evidence under 38 C.
In February 2020, the Board denied entitlement to an earlier effective date.
Rather, the Board found that its November 2000 de- cision denying Ms.
Hampton appealed to the Veterans Court, arguing that the Board erred by (1) not discussing whether her May 1999 statement and May 1999 exam constituted new and material evidence under 38 C.
Hampton’s appeal to the Veterans Court did not argue that either was new and material evi- dence received by the RO within the one-year appeal win- dow.
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 →