BVA Case 23045289: Back
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · August 15, 2023 · B. MULLINS
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
BackHipHeadacheEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
A grant for service connection for a disability requires: (1) a present disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship ("nexus") between the present disability and the in-service event, injury, or disease.
In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the Veteran.
Board determinations with respect to the weight and credibility of evidence are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence.
Competency of evidence differs from weight and credibility.
Competency is a legal concept determining whether testimony may be heard and considered by the trier of fact, while credibility is a factual determination going to the probative value of the evidence to be made after the evidence has been admitted.
The June 2022 medical expert did not find any records to support a nexus to service.
In August 2022, the Board remanded the claims again for another addendum opinion because the expert opinions did not address the issue of radiation exposure in service, since the opinions did not even mention radiation.
The rationale explained that the cataracts were less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease to include his exposure to radiation as a participant of Operation Redwing, as nuclear cataracts are most likely caused by natural age-related progression and as nuclear cataracts have not been associated with radiation exposure as supported by an article the doctor cited.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|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 →