BVA Case 22-477: Psychiatric
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
PsychiatricBackHeartGIEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
he lack of evidence on the record demonstrating an improve- ment in his condition made the decision clearly erroneous; and, alternatively, and (2) the Court should remand for reexamination of O’Connell’s condition because the Board violated its duty to assist by “fail[ing] to order a new VA medical examination before reducing O’Connell’s disability rating in view of three days of irrelevant medical records.
O’Con- nell then asserted that the Board’s duty to assist requires 1 O’Connell only appeals to this court on the basis of his second argument that the Board violated its duty to as- sist.
According to O’Connell, since the record did not adequately demonstrate the current state of his disability, the Board was required to conduct a medical examination to fulfill its duty to assist and failed to do so before determining that the 60% rating would not continue for the period from May 12, 2016, to September 13, 2019.
Since, ac- cording to O’Connell, there was insufficient medical evi- dence for the Board to determine that his condition improved, the Board’s failure to order a new medical exam- ination violated its duty to assist.
The CAVC then found that O’Connell did not demonstrate that the Board failed to meet its obligation under 38 C.
MCDONOUGH 8 fulfill its duty to assist it should have conducted a reexam- ination of his condition.
The Secretary argues that the CAVC’s “determination that VA fulfilled its duty to assist is a factual inquiry” that this court lacks jurisdiction to review, and thus this appeal should be dismissed.
In the alternative, the Secretary argues this court should affirm because the CAVC did not err in finding that VA satisfied its duty to assist.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Duty To Assist
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 →