CAVC Case 24-3612: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 2025-05-30 · JAQUITH, 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
BackKneeSleep ApneaHeadacheTBIHeartEyeRadiculopathyHypertension
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 ConnectionSleep Apnea
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the April 16,2024,decision on appeal,the Board denied the veteran's claims.
Despite acknowledging a current eye disability because the veteran wear[s]glasses and has a condition of at least one eye, the Board found that the veteran's poor visual acuity in his left eye was documented on his entrance examination and therefore constituted a preexisting condition.
The Board noted that the veteran's STRs contain[ed]no record of treatment,injury,or complaints related to his eyes and that [t]he only evidence that [his]eyes got worse or were otherwise affected by his service [wa]s the [v]eteran's testimony, which was not credible as related to his eyes.
Although he also testified vaguely to passing out,seeing white,and being briefly unable to see,before getting back up and continuing with a march, the Board found that this description of circumstances [wa]s not very specific to an eye condition and could be relating an experience [of]passing out due to any number of reasons.
may be associated with the [v]eteran's service, the Board found that the veteran had not satisfied the requirements to warrant providing a VA exam under McLendon v.
As to the claim for headaches,the Board found that the veteran had a current diagnosis but that the evidence does not show that the [v]eteran experienced an event, injury,or other circumstance during service to which this headache condition might be connected.
Thus,the Board concluded that [t]he lack of evidence that the [v]eteran manifested a belief that his headache condition began during his service prior to his submission of this claim was another reason for skepticism regarding the credibility of his assertions.
Finally,the Board found that the evidence was persuasively against a finding that the veteran's current sinus problems began during service and were otherwise related to service.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Duty To Assist|Inadequate Exam
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 →