Home › BVA Decisions › Reversals › GI

GI: From Board Denial to Court Reversal

The two-step reality of a gi appeal: what the Board does with these issues, and — when veterans appeal a denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims — the arguments that get Board denials set aside.

What this is computed from: 30,584 decisions of the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, identified inside a 39,330-document public court-decision corpus and summarized by machine analysis. Every docket number shown below was verified to appear in the court's published decision text in that corpus (112 verified; 0 candidate examples were dropped for failing verification). Selection effect: only Board decisions a veteran chose to appeal reach the Court — most Board denials are never appealed, so these rates describe appealed cases, not all denials. Data build: 2026-08-16.

Step 1 — GI at the Board

From our issue-level parse of 18,313 public Board decisions (dated 2026-01-02 to 2026-03-02; corpus ingest in progress):

Issues decided
1,275
Granted
26.0%
Denied
29.9%
Remanded
34.0%

Full Board-level tables: outcome rates by condition · judge statistics.

Step 2 — appealed denials at the Court

CAVC cases analyzed involving gi
2,789
Board decision disturbed
55.8% (1,555)

Arguments that won — verified dockets

CAVC docket 08-2758 · verified · denial type: no nexus

Board failed to conduct a de novo review of all evidence related to the theory that NSAID use for service-connected pain caused fatal bleeding.

CAVC docket 07-0456 · verified · denial type: credibility

Board erred in its duty to assist by not determining if a medical exam was warranted and provided inadequate reasons or bases for its rating decision.

CAVC docket 13-2510 · verified · denial type: preponderance against

VA medical opinion was inadequate because the examiner failed to offer an opinion on aggravation of the back condition by the service-connected knee

CAVC docket 19-8313 · verified · denial type: not new material

Board failed to provide an adequate statement of reasons or bases for finding no new and material evidence to reopen the claims.

Argument summaries are machine-extracted from the cited public court decisions and lightly compressed; read the full decision by searching the docket number at CourtListener or the Court's own public search. A cited argument working in one record does not guarantee it fits another.

Is your denial built on reasoning that fails on appeal?

Upload your decision letter — the free analyzer maps its reasoning against these patterns and computes your exact deadlines, including CAVC's 120 days.

Analyze my denial free →