CAVC Case 96-179: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · February 3, 1998 · 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
PTSDEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
Laruan, appeals a February 9, 1996, decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) which concluded that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claim of entitlement to veterans benefits.
Upon consideration of the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal, the Court holds that the appellant has failed to establish the requisite threshold status as a veteran by a preponderance of the evidence.
In the February 1996 decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claim of eligibility for veteran's benefits.
The Board found that the submitted documents were inherently untrue when viewed with all evidence of record, and further that his claims of mental illness resulting from a head injury were incredible, given that the earlier medical records and affidavits make no mention of such a disorder.
Laruan has failed to establish basic eligibility for VA benefits by a preponderance of the evidence.
Edenfield and Sarmiento In Sarmiento, the Court vacated a BVA decision which had found that the appellant had not submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim for entitlement to VA benefits.
Sarmiento argued that the Secretary had breached his duty to assist as found in section 5107(a), title 38, United States Code.
The Board's refusal to reopen for lack of new and material evidence cannot be affirmed because there simply was no finally denied claim which could be reopened under 38 U.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →