CAVC Case 97-1321: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · April 2, 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
BackKneeHearing LossTinnitusHipEyeArthritis
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
BackKneeHearing LossTinnitusHipEyeArthritis
Why It Was Decided This Way
In addressing the tinnitus claim, the Board noted in its findings of fact that "[a] medical examiner has not documented persistent tinnitus.
Finally, the Board found that the veteran's postservice medical records also failed to corroborate the claim for aggravation, stating: "[T]here is no evidence[, other than his own statements,] showing a link between the appellant's claimed condition and his military service.
In evaluating this claim only under DC 6260, the Secretary argues that remand is appropriate because the Board, in its determination of whether the appellant's tinnitus was persistent, referred only to the December 1991 examiner's report of "intermittent high pitched tinnitus bilateral," and failed to consider and weigh the appellant's August 1992 testimony of "constant high ringing.
The BVA's determinations regarding the degree of impairment of a disability, for purposes of rating, are findings of fact, reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
The Board must further provide an adequate statement 6 of the reasons or bases for its decision, analyzing the credibility and probative value of the evidence, accounting for the evidence that it finds persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the veteran.
Because there is inconsistent evidence in the record with respect to whether or not the appellant's tinnitus is "persistent" and because the Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases when it rejected or failed to consider the appellant's favorable hearing testimony, remand of the tinnitus claim is necessary.
at 58, the Board must base its decision on all of the evidence of record, and is assigned the task of making credibility determinations.
Knee Condition The appellant contends that the record contains evidence of a current diagnosis, service incurrence, and medical nexus between the two, and thus presents a well-grounded claim for service connection for his bilateral knee disability.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|No Nexus|Not New Material
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 →