CAVC Case 92-273: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · August 24, 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
BackHearing LossTinnitusHipTBIEye
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 LossTinnitusHipTBIEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Bucklinger, appeals a January 27, 1992, Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) decision denying an increased evaluation for his service-connected tinnitus and concluding that no new and material evidence had been submitted to reopen a claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss.
In the January 1992 decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that the veteran's tinnitus did not result from head injury, concussion, or exposure to acoustic trauma, and, therefore, denied the claim for a compensable rating.
negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant.
Therefore, when the Board has made its determinations as to the credibility and probative value of all pertinent evidence of record and "'there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence,' the veteran prevails by operation of [section 5107(b)].
A properly supported and reasoned conclusion that a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim necessarily precludes the possibility of the evidence also being in 'an approximate balance.
, the Board must provide a satisfactory explanation as to why the evidence was not in equipoise" so as to require application of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule.
A determination as to the cause of a disability, in this case the cause of the veteran's service-connected tinnitus, is a finding of fact, which the Court reviews under a "clearly erroneous" standard.
Remand, rather than reversal, will normally be the appropriate remedy when the Board has failed to make necessary findings of fact, or credibility and probative-value determinations, or has failed to provide an adequate explanation as to its findings of fact and the applicability of the benefit-of- the-doubt rule.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Not New Material|Preponderance Against
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 →