CAVC Case 98-1849: PTSD
CAVCReal U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) decision · June 29, 2004 · IVERS
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricTDIUEye
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
PTSDDepressionPsychiatricTDIUEye
Why It Was Decided This Way
In the September 1998 Board decision here on appeal, the Board concluded that, on the basis of the law and evidence in existence at the time, both the July 1983 and January 1985 RO decisions were correct, and that there was therefore no CUE in either decision.
The Federal Circuit stated: While Andrews may not explicitly state "the Board erred," the fact that he is challenging the Board's decision is clear, as the Board affirmed the [RO's] decision denying the CUE claim.
e, one alleging that the RO failed to consider all relevant facts of record in making its determination as to a disability rating,] is valid and does not constitute a 'dispute as to how the evidence was weighed.
Clearly, Andrews was asserting that the Board erred in not discerning [CUE].
At 319-20 (holding that 7 Board erred "as a matter of law" under 38 C.
After defining CUE as "the kind of error, of fact or law, that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error", the Board concluded that "[t]he veteran has not pointed to such error in the subject [RO] decisions, and the Board is unable to discern such error.
The appellant's argument fails because the RO in its 1983 and 1985 decisions was not required even to discuss the evidence that it considered: However, the mere fact that the RO did not discuss [a specific] report in its decision or followup letter to the veteran does not make manifest that it did not consider it.
, "Andrews is indeed challenging the determination of the Board that all his [CUE] claim did was allege a defect in how the evidence was weighed"; "[c]learly, Andrews was asserting that the Board erred in not discerning [CUE]", Andrews v.
Authorities Cited
Regulations Cited (38 CFR / 38 USC)
Denial Type
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 →