CAVC Case 96-1038: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · December 3, 1998 · 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
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
BackCervicalShoulderEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Accordingly, the Board concluded that the veteran’s death was the result of willful misconduct and denied the appellant’s claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.
If the BVA finds that an exception does apply (in this case, willful misconduct), and denies the claim solely on the basis of such exception, the Board must establish that denial of the claim is justified by a preponderance of the evidence.
The Board's Finding of Proximate Cause The appellant's main argument is that the evidence is legally insufficient to support a finding that the veteran's driving while intoxicated was the proximate cause of his death, and that, therefore, the Board's finding to that effect was clearly erroneous.
On these bases she argues, in essence, that the Board's finding of proximate cause is clearly erroneous because it was explicitly based upon negative evidence in that the Board admitted that the Navy accident investigation report was insufficient evidence standing alone.
); the Court concludes that the Board's finding that the veteran's intoxication was the proximate cause of his death is "plausible" and therefore not clearly erroneous.
The Appellant's Other Arguments The appellant argues that VA failed to fulfill its duty to assist under 38 U.
When a claimant presents a well-grounded claim for VA benefits, VA has a duty to assist the claimant "in developing the facts pertinent to the claim.
Although it is not contested that the appellant has submitted a well-grounded claim, thus triggering the duty to assist, she fails to offer any basis for believing that the evidence already of record concerning the accident scene was somehow incomplete or that the photographs, taken by the same police officer who filed the report concerning the state of the accident scene, would somehow contradict the officer's written report.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →