CAVC Case 97-1276: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · September 28, 1999 · 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
BackHipEyeProstate
Why It Was Decided This Way
Accordingly, the Board concluded that the October 1993 letter was sufficient to change the beneficiary of the NSLI policy and ruled in favor of the intervenor.
In Young, based on the evidence of record, the Board found that the insured veteran had mailed a change-of-beneficiary letter to VA even though it had never been received by VA during the insured veteran's life.
The Board found that the appellant was not entitled to the NSLI proceeds because there was no writing evidencing the insured veteran's intent to change the beneficiary of his policy.
Jones did not address the Secretary's implementing regulation.
The 5 Board found that the change was not valid, and the Court affirmed.
The Court then held that the Board's finding of fact that the insured veteran's signature was authentic was not clearly erroneous.
259, 263 (1997) ("The appellant cannot be entitled to the benefit of the doubt here because there are two claimants in this case.
Thus, the cases fall into two categories, one where the insured veteran's intent is clearly proven, and one where the insured veteran's intent is proven by only a preponderance of the evidence.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|Preponderance Against
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 →