CAVC Case 23-6061: Diabetes
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2024-12-27 · MEREDITH, 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 ConnectionReopen
Why It Was Decided This Way
In May 2015,the appellant sought to reopen his claim,but the RO determined that he had not submitted new and material evidence.
In the alternative,the appellant maintains that vacatur and remand are warranted because the Board failed to provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision.
In this regard, he contends that,because his service records are unavailable,the Board had a heightened duty to explain its findings and was required to carefully consider the application of the benefit of the doubt.
He asserts that,in the decision on appeal,the Board proffered a conclusory finding that '[t]he benefit of the doubt doctrine .
He also avers that the Board did not explain why it would have expected his trips to the DMZ to be recorded in his personnel records or in the unit histories VA was able to obtain,and therefore the Board failed to establish a proper foundation for relying on the absence of evidence to deny his claim.
The appellant next argues that,given the unavailability of his records,VA also had a heightened duty to assist him,but the Board failed to consider whether VA met its obligation in that regard.
Turning to the matter of direct service connection,the appellant contends that the Board did not consider whether his diabetes was directly related to herbicide exposure in service,instead finding only that there was no 'causal relationship between the claimed disability and any other incident of active service.
Regarding the Board's reasons or bases, the Secretary maintains that (1) VA discharged its duty to assist in a heighten[ed]fashion considering the volume of attempts it made to substantiate [the appellant's]lay statements, id.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material|Duty To Assist
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 →