CAVC Case 23-3528: Heart
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-05-13 · PIETSCH, 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
Service Connection
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant,appeals the May 9, 2023,Board of Veterans'Appeals (Board)decision in which the Board denied service connection for a heart disability.
In the March 2023 statement in response to the February 2023 SSOC, the appellant, through his attorney,asserted that instead of affording him the benefit of the doubt and according more weight to evidence that 'suggests that there was aerial spraying of defoliant in the DMZ during the 1960's and as early as 1955' VA simply found that he served in Korea 9 years prior to herbicides being used there.
Per the appellant,VA should have given more weight to the credibility of his statements and not based its decision on the absence of his unit history records.
3 Case:23-3528 Page: 4 of 13 Filed:05/13/2024 In the May 2023 decision,the Board determined that the appellant's heart disability was not shown as chronic in service and did not manifest to a compensable degree within the applicable presumptive period.
With respect to the second element required for service connection,an in-service event or injury,the appellant maintains that the Board erred when it considered the absence of evidence to be negative evidence.
The appellant further maintains that,after providing his November 2020 hearing testimony and the written statement attesting to the fact that he was exposed to herbicides when he slept on the ground in the Korean DMZ,the Board found him competent to state he was present when chemicals were sprayed.
In addition,the appellant notes that when records are lost, the Board has a heightened duty to consider the applicability of the benefit of the doubt rule favoring veterans.
According to the appellant,the Board failed to fulfill this duty because it did not discuss the eye witness account in the newspaper article or explain why the evidence was disregarded.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Non Denial Outcome
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 →