BVA Case 20-7567: Back
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · DYK
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
BackHipTDIUEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
He argued that the Board erroneously applied a preponder- ance of the evidence standard when he needed to show only that “it is at least as likely as not that his service[-]con- nected disabilities cause him to be unable to secure or fol- low a substantially gainful occupation” to receive the benefit of the doubt.
He argued that the Board “fail[ed] to apply the benefit of the doubt” which applies where there is “an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence.
COLLINS 3 was an approximate balance of positive and negative evi- dence, the Board was required as a matter of law to afford [him] the benefit of the doubt.
2021), to consider when a claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
(“Put differently, if the posi- tive and negative evidence is in approximate balance (which includes but is not limited to equipoise), the claim- ant receives the benefit of the doubt.
While Ortiz cor- rectly focused on the issue of persuasion and whether the Board has been persuaded in one direction or another, we explained that the use of preponderance language could lead to confusion given “other cases link ‘preponderance of the evidence’ to the concept of equipoise” and not with per- suasion.
3d at 1354 (classifying appellant as a pre- vailing party for “securing a remand requiring considera- tion of his ataxia diagnosis” which he argued the regional office and Board failed to consider); Dover v.
Louvall specifically as- serted that he was entitled to the benefit of the doubt as his standard of proof and that “the Board applied the wrong legal standard by basing its decision on ‘[t]he preponder- ance of the evidence.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Preponderance Against
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 →