CAVC Case 91-1457: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 15, 1993 · NEBEKER, Chief 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
PTSDPsychiatricBackTDIURadiculopathy
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackTDIURadiculopathy
Why It Was Decided This Way
The Board determined that this lack of identification casts a cloud over the propriety of the separation.
In both instances, the veteran appealed only the issue of new and material evidence with regard to service connection for a nervous condition.
The BVA reviewed the appeal on the issue of whether new and material evidence had been submitted.
New and material evidence would give rise to a new factual basis warranting service connection for a chronic acquired psychiatric disability.
The BVA concluded that the evidence submitted since the 1984 decision was new and material.
The Board has weighed the evidence in this case and we find that the balance of the evidence weighs more strongly against a grant of service connection, and is not so evenly divided as to permit the Board to resolve the benefit of the doubt in favor of the veteran.
ANALYSIS The Court has held that the determination whether evidence submitted to reopen a previously disallowed claim is new and material under 38 U.
This Court has also established a two-part analysis and has held that the BVA must utilize this test when a veteran, as in this case, seeks to reopen a claim based upon "new and material" evidence.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Duty To Assist|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 →