CAVC Case 92-1347: Psychiatric

CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 21, 1994 · 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.

What would this rating pay you? (2026 rates)

Official 2026 VA monthly compensation, including the 2.8% COLA increase.

Rating Married Children

per month · per year, tax-free

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

See your full claim picture — free

Outcome

Affirmed

Decision Date

June 21, 1994

Judge

NEBEKER, Chief Judge

Service Era

Not specified

Conditions Claimed

Psychiatric Back Hip Headache Eye Arthritis

Issues on Appeal

PsychiatricBackHipHeadacheEyeArthritis

Why It Was Decided This Way

Glynn, had not submitted new and material evidence regarding his claim for service connection for a back condition, and thus refused to reopen this previously and finally denied claim.

Thereafter, the Board denied service connection in a September 7, 1950, decision which mentioned the affidavits of Mr.

The RO in a confirmed rating continued the denial of appellant's claim on June 29, 1954, specifically finding no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The section headed "DECISION OF THE BOARD" recites that, after review and consideration of all evidence and material, "the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a back disability.

In the sections headed "FINDINGS OF FACT" and "CONCLUSION OF LAW," the Board found both that new and material evidence had not been submitted since the 1950 BVA decision, and that neither the 1946 RO decision nor the 1950 BVA decision was the product of CUE.

Before this Court, in addition to arguing that he is entitled to service connection, appellant alleges that the BVA erred in concluding that new and material evidence had not been submitted since the 1950 BVA decision, and erred in determining that that decision was not the product of CUE.

New and Material Evidence A final BVA decision "may not thereafter be reopened and allowed and a claim based upon the same factual basis may not be considered.

The exception to this rule states that "[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

Chisem v. BrownColvin v. DerwinskiCox v. BrownEspiritu v. DerwinskiGardner v. DerwinskiGinnis v. BrownGriffin v. Oceanic ContractorsIn Grottveit v. BrownManio v. DerwinskiMarlow v. BrownMasors v. DerwinskiPerson v. BrownSee Moray v. BrownSee Russell v. PrincipiSee Sklar v. BrownSpencer v. BrownThompson v. Derwinski

Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)

38 CFR 3.105(a)38 CFR 3.105(a) (1993)38 CFR 3.30338 USC 510838 USC 7104(b)38 USC 7261(a)(1)38 USC 7261(a)(3)

Denial Type

Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →