CAVC Case 93-135: Depression
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 6, 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.
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipEye
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
DepressionAnxietyPsychiatricBackHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The appellant claims the BVA erred and its decision should be reversed because the relevant evidence in the record compels that he is entitled to a 30% disability rating under the benefit of the doubt rule.
The Board found that the evidence of record did not indicate that the appellant's symptomatology as manifested by his service-connected psychoneurosis satisfied the criteria for a rating in excess of 10% disabling.
The Board determined: On mental status examination [in September 1987], the [appellant] was both alert and coherent, with no evidence of psychosis.
Claim for Increased Rating The appellant contends that the Board's October 28, 1992, decision should be reversed because the relevant evidence in the record indicates that he is entitled to a 30% disability rating under the benefit of the doubt rule in 38 U.
He argues that the benefit of the doubt rule must be applied "every time the Board makes a material determination in a case.
In this instance, however, we are unable to determine whether the benefit of the doubt rule was rejected properly because the Board failed to apply the relevant regulation, 38 C.
The Board found that the appellant "was both alert and coherent, with no evidence of psychosis.
Finally, the Board found that "[p]ast memory was adequate, and there was some evidence of poor abstraction ability, as evidenced by the [appellant's] tendency to be somewhat concrete in his thinking.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →