CAVC Case 95-574: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · 1987-05-01 · FARLEY, 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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricBackHeadacheSkinRespiratory
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
Service ConnectionReopenPTSD
Why It Was Decided This Way
FARLEY, Judge : This is an appeal from a March 10, 1995, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which determined that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and found that the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of Agent Orange exposure, to include respiratory disease; skin rash; a liver disorder; memory loss; an acquired psychiatric disorder; and a back disorder were not well grounded.
The regional office (RO) noted that the veteran's service medical records were negative for any of the conditions he claimed to be secondary to Agent Orange exposure and that, since a previous claim for myopathy had been denied , the veteran was required to submit new and material evidence regarding his claim for aching joints and muscles, which he had not done.
The Board found that the evidence submitted since the December 1979 RO decision regarding the veteran's claimed back condition was not new and material.
Although the Board noted that the veteran had been diagnosed with PTSD in 1986, because the diagnosis was based upon the history provided by the veteran, which the Board found to be incredible, the Board concluded that the veteran did not suffer from PTSD and denied his PTSD claim.
Finally, the Board noted that the issue of service connection for residuals of exposure to Agent Orange was the subject of another BVA decision and was therefore not addressed in that decision.
In November 1991, the RO issued a confirmed rating decision finding that the veteran had failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection for PTSD.
In December 1992, the RO issued a confirmed rating decision, finding that the veteran had failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection for PTSD.
The hearing officer issued his decision in January 1994 finding that the veteran had failed to submit new and material evidence to reopen his claim for service connection for PTSD.
Authorities Cited
Denial Type
Not New Material|Cue
Find Similar Decisions 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 →