CAVC Case 90-673: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 13, 1991 · MANKIN
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
BackHipRespiratoryEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
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
BackHipRespiratoryEyeArthritisRadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
Because the BVA failed to consider adequately all the evidence in the record and give sufficient "reasons or bases" for its decision, and because the Veterans' Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs) (VA) failed in its duty to assist and thus appellant's claim was improperly evaluated, the BVA decision is vacated and the case remanded for readjudication of the claim in accordance with this opinion.
The BVA decision includes neither an analysis of "the credibility or probative value of the evidence submitted by or on behalf of the veteran in support of his claim .
," nor any explanation of the Board's conclusion that the claimant's back disorder was not service connected under the regulations that the BVA finds applicable here.
The Board considered the sworn testimony before a hearing officer as part of "THE EVIDENCE" in the case, but made no express credibility determinations regarding his testimony in the "DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION" portion of its decision.
It is the duty of the fact finder to determine credibility.
The Court cannot determine the credibility of a veteran's sworn testimony.
Determination of credibility is a function for the BVA.
Here, the BVA decision fails to include an analysis of the credibility or probative value of the evidence submitted by or on behalf of the veteran in support of his claim, or an explanation of the Board's conclusion that, "[t]he veteran does not have a low back disorder that was incurred in or aggravated by service, nor may arthritis of the spine be presumed to have been incurred in service.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not Service Connected|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 →