CAVC Case 94-1099: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 7, 1996 · KRAMER
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackTBIRespiratoryEye
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
PTSDPsychiatricBackTBIRespiratoryEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Further, the BVA must provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for such findings, including a clear analysis of the evidence which it finds persuasive or unpersuasive with respect to that issue.
The factual findings made by the BVA in this case are subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, "this Court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the BVA on issue of material fact; if there is a <plausible basis' in the record for the factual determinations of the BVA .
ed an in-service stressor with respect to events (1), (3), (4), and (5) was plausible, and thus not clearly erroneous, again assuming that the stressors are not related to combat.
With respect to whether the appellant had experienced a stressor associated with traumatic event (2), the Board determined that this event did not constitute an event sufficient to support a diagnosis of PTSD because the appellant was not exposed to "<an event that is outside the range of usual human experience'" (see MANUAL M21-1, Part VI, ¶ 7.
Because witnessing such an event constitutes a sufficient stressor as a matter of law, assuming that the BVA determines upon remand that the appellant did not engage in combat with the enemy, the duty to assist requires the BVA to attempt to corroborate this event by obtaining information regarding the identity of the U.
§ 5107(a) (where a claimant has submitted "evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded," the Board has a duty to assist him in developing the facts pertinent to his claim); see also MANUAL M21-1, Part VI, ¶ 7.
Finally, with respect to traumatic event (6), the Board did not address whether the numerous documented attacks made on the Phan Rang Air Base while the appellant was stationed at the base constituted a stressor sufficient to support a diagnosis of PTSD and whether such stressor was causally related to his present symptomatology.
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 →