CAVC Case 90-1511: Psychiatric
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · March 31, 1994 · KRAMER
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
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
PsychiatricBackTDIUEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant claims that the BVA erred in determining that the severity of his condition had not increased, and that the Board failed to address his entitlement to a higher rating due to individual unemployability.
The appellant further contends that the Board erred in determining that he was not entitled to an earlier effective date for service connection, because prior determinations were the result of clear and unmistakable error (CUE), based upon the VA's failure to obtain private medical records requested by the appellant.
The Court finds that because the Board failed to conduct a contemporaneous examination of the appellant and assess evidence presented by him, it did not appropriately determine whether the appellant's condition had become more severe.
Further, although the appellant raised the issue of entitlement to an increased rating due to individual unemployability, the Board failed to address that claim.
Last, while the appellant has raised the issue of CUE in prior determinations, the issue 2 is not applicable here because CUE claims cannot be based upon a failure in the duty to assist.
The RO denied his claim, and informed the appellant that new and material evidence was required to reopen a previous and finally disallowed claim.
In June 1979 the appellant again attempted to reopen his claim, but again reopening was denied due to the lack of new and material evidence.
The Board denied entitlement to an increased rating and an earlier effective date, and the present appeal followed.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Duty To Assist|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 →