BVA Case 24028711: Psychiatric

BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · August 9, 2024 · SHEREEN M. MARCUS

Outcome

Granted / Denied

Decision Date

August 9, 2024

Judge

SHEREEN M. MARCUS

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Psychiatric Back Cervical Knee Hearing Loss Shoulder Hip Ankle Skin Eye

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Issues on Appeal

PsychiatricBackCervicalKneeHearing LossShoulderHipAnkle

Why It Was Decided This Way

When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt will be given to the veteran.

The VA medical opinions of record, to specifically include the February 2024 VA medical opinion, rely almost exclusively on the lack of in-service documentation to deny finding a nexus to service, which is an inadequate rationale in light of the Veteran's combat service.

The positive June 2023 private opinion did not address the issue of the Veteran's pre-service childhood knee injury, nor did it reconcile the conflicting reports regarding the Veteran's parachute jumps.

Ultimately, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral ankle disability was less likely than not related to service.

At which time, the examiner opined that the Veteran's bilateral ankle disability was less likely than not related to service because his degenerative joint disease (DJD) of the ankles has a clear and specific etiology.

He also opined that the Veteran's bilateral ankle and hip disabilities were less likely than not related to service.

Also, the examiner noted that the Veteran's contentions about onset were contradictory and not related to any combat.

The Board finds the evidence of record is in approximate balance, and therefore, the Veteran is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

Authorities Cited

Aires v. PeakeBond v. ShinsekiBuie v. ShinsekiChavis v. McCorreia v. McHare v. DerwinskiHicks v. BrownIn Reeves v. ShinsekiLayno v. BrownLuca v. BrownPeyton v. DerwinskiPowell v. WestRobinson v. PeakeRodriguez v. PeakeSchafrath v. DerwinskiSee Caluza v. BrownSee Cromer v. NicholsonSee Curry v. BrownSee Esteban v. BrownSee Hart v. MansfieldSee Lynch v. McSee Maxson v. GoberSee Miller v. WilkieSee Mitchell v. ShinsekiSee Mozingo v. ShinsekiSee Reeves v. ShinsekiSee Reonal v. BrownSee Russo v. BrownSee Scott v. McSee Stegall v. West

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 20.1105 (2011)38 CFR 20.130338 CFR 3.10238 CFR 3.156(b)38 CFR 3.156(b) (2011)38 CFR 3.321(a)38 CFR 3.400(o)(2)38 CFR 4.138 CFR 4.1438 CFR 4.338 CFR 4.4038 CFR 4.5938 CFR 4.638 CFR 4.738 CFR 4.7138 CFR 4.71a38 USC 111038 USC 111738 USC 111938 USC 1131

Denial Type

Credibility|No Nexus|Inadequate Exam

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 →