CAVC Case 95-59: Shoulder
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · October 24, 1996 · 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
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
ShoulderHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
The RO informed the appellant that the additional evidence submitted was not new and material because it was repetitive and cumulative of the evidence previously considered.
Tulingan appealed to the BVA, which concluded that the additional evidence submitted by him was not new and material evidence.
The Court concluded that Tulingan had submitted new and material evidence, and that the BVA must reopen the claim and evaluate it in light of all the evidence, both old and new.
Clearly Erroneous" Analysis The Court reviews the BVA's findings regarding forfeiture as a question of fact under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
Additionally, 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 Board found that Tulingan "was guilty of rendering assistance to an enemy of the United States," and that therefore the weight of the evidence was against the claim for revocation of the forfeiture.
While our earlier remand here was based upon the finding of new and material evidence, we now look upon these decisions in a different context: where a veteran has lost his status as a benefits-eligible claimant, he must establish it anew by a preponderance of the evidence.
FARLEY, Judge, concurring: I concur in the conclusions that there is a plausible basis in the record for the Board's factual findings and that those findings are not clearly erroneous.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Not New Material|Preponderance Against|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 →