CAVC Case 91-1565: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 11, 1993 · 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
BackHearing LossTinnitusHeadacheSkinHeartRespiratoryTDIUEyeRadiculopathy
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
BackHearing LossTinnitusHeadacheSkinHeartRespiratoryTDIU
Why It Was Decided This Way
On January 15, 1980, a medical board noted appellant's "chronic persistent mild to moderate right hemiscrotal discomfort" and recommended that appellant would be more effective if he were restricted to sedentary activity.
In March 1983, a medical board noted that appellant was experiencing pain on his right side whenever he engaged in "any type of physical activity besides bed rest and sitting activities.
On April 12, 1983, an Army physical evaluation board found appellant unfit for duty and recommended that he be"[permanently retired from the service.
ANALYSIS This appeal presents several issues: whether the Board's denial of service connection for Meniere's syndrome was clearly erroneous; whether the Board's denial of an increased (compensable) rating for service-connected right epididymitis was clearly erroneous; and whether the Board's denial of a total rating for IU purposes was clearly erroneous.
The Court reviews the BVA's finding under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
Under the "Clearly erroneous" standard of review, "if there is a 'plausible' basis in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA, even if this Court might not have reached the same factual determinations, [the Court] cannot overturn them.
Section 7104(a)(West 1991), and must provide a "written statement of [its] findings and conclusions, and the reasons or bases for those findings and conclusions, on all material issues of fact and law presented on the record," 38 U.
In fact, an Army medical board found that he had bilateral hearing loss as a result of the trauma associated with the tank gun muzzle blast.
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material
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 →