BVA Case 23035794: Psychiatric
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · June 23, 2023 · M. C. GRAHAM
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
PsychiatricBackKneeHipTBITDIU
Why It Was Decided This Way
Addressing the Concerns of the January 2020 Joint Motion The January 2020 Joint Motion in this case states: "The parties agree that remand is required in this case because the Board erred when it failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases that was consistent with the Court's decision in Withers v.
The January 2020 Joint Motion discusses that: Here, the Board denied entitlement to TDIU because it found that Appellant's "service-connected pathology does not significantly interfere with.
To the extent that the Board noted Appellant completed four years of high school and one year of college and previously worked at a "desk job,".
the Board failed to adequately analyze how this history would affect Appellant's current ability to secure and maintain substantially gainful employment.
As discussed below, the Board finds that the vocational expert relied upon the Veteran's account of facts that are not credibly supported by the evidence and that are the subject of inconsistent testimony that lacked credibility.
498, 510-511 (1995) ("Credibility can be genuinely evaluated by a showing of interest, bias, or inconsistent statements, and the demeanor of the witness, official plausibility of the testimony, and the consistency of the witness' testimony"); see also Cartright v.
24, 25 (1991) ("although interest may affect the credibility of testimony, it does not affect competency to testify").
This is an additional factor weighing against the credibility of the testimony concerning the Veteran's pain experience during the period for consideration (in addition to factors such as its inconsistency with the Veteran's contrary statements and contrary medical evidence on the subject).
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not Service Connected
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 →