CAVC Case 96-1170: Headache
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 7, 1999 · 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
HeadacheSkinTDIUEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Baldwin asserted that the original denial of his claim constituted a failure on the part of VA in its duty to assist him, lacked adequate reasons or bases, and was violative of VA "[d]ue [p]rocess regulations.
ailed to state what that legal authority or "ample evidence" was; and (3) that the BVA violated its duty to assist him by failing to consider his argument that VA never adjudicated a claim for eye disease.
At most, the rating decision's lack of discussion of an etiology for the defective vision occasioned a failure in the duty to assist, which cannot form a valid basis for a CUE claim.
With respect to the appellant's claim that the Board failed to address an eye disease claim, the Secretary states: In attempting to now make the basis for [his] CUE claim as stated before the BVA into two issues, .
Appellant runs afoul of the specific pleading requirements for CUE and attempts to circumvent the fact that the duty to assist cannot form the basis of a CUE claim, by asserting that the BVA failed to address an artificial 'issue' that was not raised or inferred below as a separate claim.
For a claim of CUE to be reasonably raised, the claimant must provide some degree of specificity as to what the alleged error is, and, unless it is the kind of error that, if true, would be CUE on its face, "persuasive reasons must be given as to why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error.
The appellant has attempted to assert a valid CUE claim, for he claims both that the RO did not consider all of the facts of record, such as the discussions of chorioretinitis and choroiditis included in his service medical records (SMRs), and that the RO did not apply the regulations in effect in 1956, because if it had, he would have received a 10% rating for his eye disease, whether or not it was then disabling.
However, assuming, but not deciding, that the RO did not consider DC 6005 or DC 6006 in its 1956 evaluation of Mr.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Duty To Assist|Cue
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 →