CAVC Case 97-1518: Back
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 1, 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
BackShoulderHipEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
In its March 26, 1997, decision the Board found that the January 1991 note was executed by the veteran and represented a valid change of beneficiary.
The determination of whether a veteran has signed and mailed a letter constituting a change in beneficiary is a factual determination subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review.
A finding is 'clearly erroneous' when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.
In determining whether a finding is clearly erroneous, "this Court is not permitted to substitute its judgment for that of the BVA on issues of material fact; if there is a 'plausible basis' in the record 7 for the factual determinations of the BVA .
The Board has the duty to assess the credibility and weight to be given to the evidence.
West, which was authored by our dissenting colleague, this Court addressed an appellant's argument that VA had failed in its duty to assist when it did not obtain photographs, identified in a police report, which had been taken shortly after an accident had occurred.
When an appellant presents a well-grounded claim for VA benefits the second chronological obligation is triggered: VA has a duty to assist the appellant "in developing the facts pertinent to the claim.
Once the duty to assist has been triggered, it applies to all identified documents that are facially relevant and available.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
Credibility|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 →