For arthritis appeals, how often the Board granted the issue when the record held each kind of evidence, and how often when it did not. Measured from the decisions themselves; every number carries its fraction.
| When the record had… | Granted, with it | Granted, without it | Difference | Remanded, with it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A medical source gave a positive nexus opinionEvidence in the record | 52% (48/92) | 23% (167/741) | +30 pts | 10% (10/103) |
| Private physician opinion, letter or DBQEvidence in the record | 37% (68/184) | 23% (147/649) | +14 pts | 9% (19/206) |
| Third-party lay statements (spouse, buddy, employer)Evidence in the record | 24% (20/84) | 26% (195/749) | -2 pts | 9% (8/94) |
| Service treatment records document the condition or injuryEvidence in the record | 30% (120/398) | 22% (95/435) | +8 pts | 10% (47/458) |
| Service treatment records silent for the conditionEvidence in the record | 13% (48/362) | 35% (167/471) | -22 pts | 3% (12/383) |
| Continuity of symptoms argued (38 CFR 3.303(b))Theory argued | 20% (77/379) | 30% (138/454) | -10 pts | 6% (25/409) |
| Board hearing held or testimony takenProcedure | 28% (112/404) | 24% (103/429) | +4 pts | 14% (68/492) |
| Social Security records in the fileEvidence in the record | 18% (9/50) | 26% (206/783) | -8 pts | 8% (5/60) |
| Medical literature or treatise citedEvidence in the record | 27% (34/125) | 26% (181/708) | +2 pts | 23% (38/163) |
| Functional loss / DeLuca factors argued (rating cases)Theory argued | 30% (24/80) | 25% (191/753) | +5 pts | 11% (10/91) |
| Presumptive service connection discussedTheory argued | 18% (108/590) | 44% (107/243) | -26 pts | 5% (30/632) |
| Secondary service connection (38 CFR 3.310) in playTheory argued | 25% (80/320) | 26% (135/513) | -1 pts | 13% (48/378) |
| Combat service / 1154(b) in playTheory argued | 26% (22/84) | 26% (193/749) | +0 pts | 14% (14/103) |
| A medical source gave a negative nexus opinionEvidence in the record | 28% (86/306) | 24% (129/527) | +4 pts | 20% (79/387) |
| No nexus opinion of recordEvidence in the record | 7% (6/81) | 28% (209/752) | -20 pts | 4% (4/90) |
| VA examination or VA medical opinion obtainedEvidence in the record | 27% (188/686) | 18% (27/147) | +9 pts | 19% (165/868) |
| Board found a VA exam or opinion inadequateHow the Board read the record | 34% (47/140) | 24% (168/693) | +9 pts | 39% (92/234) |
| Board found the VA exam or opinion adequateHow the Board read the record | 7% (4/54) | 27% (211/779) | -20 pts | 2% (1/55) |
| Board found the veteran's statements credibleHow the Board read the record | 58% (32/55) | 24% (183/778) | +35 pts | 7% (4/60) |
| Benefit of the doubt resolved in the veteran's favorHow the Board read the record | 83% (97/117) | 16% (118/716) | +66 pts | 0% (0/117) |
| Preponderance of the evidence against / doctrine not applicableHow the Board read the record | 3% (12/368) | 44% (203/465) | -40 pts | 0% (1/372) |
| Board ordered a new exam or addendum opinionProcedure | 28% (36/127) | 25% (179/706) | +3 pts | 54% (157/290) |
"Granted" = share of issues decided on the merits (granted + denied); remands and dismissals are excluded from that fraction and shown separately. Fractions are the raw counts.
| When the record had… | Granted, with it | Granted, without it | Difference | Remanded, with it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Private physician opinion, letter or DBQEvidence in the record | 9% (3/35) | 14% (38/265) | -6 pts | 5% (2/37) |
| Service treatment records document the condition or injuryEvidence in the record | 21% (13/62) | 12% (28/238) | +9 pts | 2% (1/64) |
| Board hearing held or testimony takenProcedure | 14% (17/124) | 14% (24/176) | +0 pts | 16% (25/154) |
| Secondary service connection (38 CFR 3.310) in playTheory argued | 8% (8/100) | 16% (33/200) | -8 pts | 6% (6/108) |
| Board found a VA exam or opinion inadequateHow the Board read the record | 16% (5/32) | 13% (36/268) | +2 pts | 43% (24/56) |
| Board found the VA exam or opinion adequateHow the Board read the record | 6% (2/33) | 15% (39/267) | -9 pts | 0% (0/33) |
| Preponderance of the evidence against / doctrine not applicableHow the Board read the record | 4% (7/178) | 28% (34/122) | -24 pts | 0% (0/179) |
| Board ordered a new exam or addendum opinionProcedure | 16% (6/38) | 13% (35/262) | +2 pts | 55% (47/86) |
"Granted" = share of issues decided on the merits (granted + denied); remands and dismissals are excluded from that fraction and shown separately. Fractions are the raw counts.
| When the record had… | Granted, with it | Granted, without it | Difference | Remanded, with it |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A medical source gave a positive nexus opinionEvidence in the record | 50% (50/100) | 24% (291/1,212) | +26 pts | 10% (11/112) |
| Private physician opinion, letter or DBQEvidence in the record | 34% (83/242) | 24% (258/1,070) | +10 pts | 10% (27/274) |
| Third-party lay statements (spouse, buddy, employer)Evidence in the record | 22% (21/97) | 26% (320/1,215) | -5 pts | 8% (9/108) |
| Service treatment records document the condition or injuryEvidence in the record | 31% (156/501) | 23% (185/811) | +8 pts | 9% (50/566) |
| Service treatment records silent for the conditionEvidence in the record | 13% (50/374) | 31% (291/938) | -18 pts | 4% (15/400) |
| Continuity of symptoms argued (38 CFR 3.303(b))Theory argued | 20% (78/382) | 28% (263/930) | -8 pts | 6% (26/413) |
| Board hearing held or testimony takenProcedure | 28% (171/611) | 24% (170/701) | +4 pts | 14% (101/740) |
| Social Security records in the fileEvidence in the record | 18% (14/80) | 27% (327/1,232) | -9 pts | 6% (5/90) |
| Medical literature or treatise citedEvidence in the record | 28% (39/138) | 26% (302/1,174) | +3 pts | 22% (39/177) |
| Functional loss / DeLuca factors argued (rating cases)Theory argued | 27% (134/490) | 25% (207/822) | +2 pts | 10% (53/545) |
| Presumptive service connection discussedTheory argued | 18% (110/599) | 32% (231/713) | -14 pts | 5% (32/647) |
| Secondary service connection (38 CFR 3.310) in playTheory argued | 24% (114/473) | 27% (227/839) | -3 pts | 11% (59/544) |
| Combat service / 1154(b) in playTheory argued | 24% (22/90) | 26% (319/1,222) | -2 pts | 15% (17/112) |
| A medical source gave a negative nexus opinionEvidence in the record | 28% (95/342) | 25% (246/970) | +2 pts | 20% (84/428) |
| No nexus opinion of recordEvidence in the record | 7% (6/84) | 27% (335/1,228) | -20 pts | 4% (4/93) |
| VA examination or VA medical opinion obtainedEvidence in the record | 27% (303/1,125) | 20% (38/187) | +7 pts | 17% (238/1,387) |
| Board found a VA exam or opinion inadequateHow the Board read the record | 31% (58/188) | 25% (283/1,124) | +6 pts | 39% (123/313) |
| Board found the VA exam or opinion adequateHow the Board read the record | 13% (13/98) | 27% (328/1,214) | -14 pts | 1% (1/100) |
| Board found the veteran's statements credibleHow the Board read the record | 56% (38/68) | 24% (303/1,244) | +32 pts | 5% (4/73) |
| Benefit of the doubt resolved in the veteran's favorHow the Board read the record | 81% (122/150) | 19% (219/1,162) | +62 pts | 0% (0/150) |
| Preponderance of the evidence against / doctrine not applicableHow the Board read the record | 5% (31/608) | 44% (310/704) | -39 pts | 0% (1/615) |
| Board ordered a new exam or addendum opinionProcedure | 28% (52/184) | 26% (289/1,128) | +3 pts | 54% (220/411) |
"Granted" = share of issues decided on the merits (granted + denied); remands and dismissals are excluded from that fraction and shown separately. Fractions are the raw counts.
Association, not cause. A positive nexus opinion appears in the records of granted appeals far more often than in denied ones. That does not mean any letter wins; it means the Board grants when the evidence supports the claim, and a nexus opinion is how that support usually reaches the file.
Appeals are not claims. Every decision here is an appealed denial. Grant rates at the Board say nothing about the share of initial claims VA grants.
Findings are outcomes in disguise. Rows under "how the Board read the record" — credibility, benefit of the doubt, an inadequate exam — describe how the judge decided, not evidence to gather. They are shown because they say which arguments the Board actually reaches for.
Detection is by text pattern. Each evidence type is found by reading the decision for finding-shaped language with negation handling; precision was read on samples before publication and is stated per feature in the method notes below. Expect a few percent of misclassified rows, not zero.
VetAid's free analyzer reads your decision letter and records, then ranks the evidence gaps by exactly these numbers — for your conditions, not the average.
Analyze my claim free →See also: Arthritis decisions · all conditions · outcome rates.