BVA Case 85-279: PTSD
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · GAJARSA
Conditions Claimed
PTSDBackHearing LossEyeRadiculopathy
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
PTSDBackHearing LossEyeRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
Initially, the RO treated Boggs’ 2002 claim as an attempt to reopen his 1955 claim and notified him that new and material evidence would be required to reopen his claim.
However, when the RO ultimately considered Boggs’ 2002 claim, its decision only referred to the claim as a “new claim” and failed to specify the new and material evidence requirement.
Although the RO’s decision appears to have treated Boggs’ 2002 claim as a new claim, the Board determined that Boggs was attempting to reopen his 1955 claim.
Moreover, the Board found that Boggs had failed to present new and material evidence to support his claim, which pursuant to 38 U.
In particular, the Board found that Boggs’ diagnosis for sensorineural hearing loss was cumulative with the evidence of conductive hearing loss he had submitted for his 1955 claim.
Based upon 2007-7137 3 its finding that Boggs failed to present new and material evidence, the Board denied Boggs’ 2002 claim as a failed attempt to reopen his 1955 claim.
Before the CAVC, Boggs argued that the Board erred by categorizing his 2002 claim as a claim for hearing loss rather than as a claim for sensorineural hearing loss.
§ 5108, “[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Cue
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 →