BVA Case 94-32376: Psychiatric
BVAReal Board of Veterans' Appeals decision · · SCHALL
Conditions Claimed
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 |
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
PsychiatricBackEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
This case presents the question of what procedures the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) must follow when the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) directs the VA regional office (“RO”) to reopen a case for new and material evidence.
In June 1991, Sims requested that the VA reopen his claim on grounds of new and material evidence.
In December 1991, the RO denied the request to reopen on the ground that no new and material evidence had been submitted.
After various interim proceedings before the RO, Sims filed an NOD, and this triggered an October 1993 Statement of the Case (“SOC”), in which the RO reiterated its conclusion that no new and material evidence had been submitted.
Thereafter, Sims on several occasions submitted additional evidence in support of his motion to reopen his claim based on new and material evidence, and the Board and the Veterans Court remanded to the RO.
Eventually, in a November 2002 decision the Board found that new and material evidence—including additional service medical records and service personnel records, non-VA and VA medical records, testimony from the veteran, and statements from his sister and his ex-wife—had been submitted, sufficient to reopen Sims’s claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.
In October 2005, the Board affirmed the denial of Sims’s claim, finding that “the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder.
The Board rejected Sims’s jurisdictional arguments because they were based on an “unstated assumption that a determination as to whether there is new and material evidence to reopen a claim and a determination as to whether service connection should be granted on the merits when a previously denied claim is reopened are completely separate matters for jurisdictional purposes.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →