In this appeal, the Board denied a PTSD rating above 70 percent for the disputed period. The decision listed the criteria associated with a 100 percent rating and summarized evidence, but much of its analysis focused on symptoms the veteran did not have. I challenged the missing assessment of the symptoms actually shown.
Listening and examining the Board’s analysis
I listened to my client and reviewed the evidence against the Board’s explanation. A mental-health rating decision should do more than reproduce a list of criteria. I examined whether the Board assessed the severity, frequency, and duration of the symptoms and explained how the evidence supported its conclusion.
The appeal did not depend on inventing a symptom or claiming that a diagnosis alone established a particular percentage. It focused on the quality of the analysis already required by the record. The Board had listed evidence but had not supplied the necessary evaluation of it.
Preparing the legal memo
I drafted a legal memo grounded in the Board’s duty to provide adequate reasons or bases under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). The joint motion addressed Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki and the importance of symptom severity, frequency, and duration in the rating analysis.
It also relied on Dennis v. Nicholson’s explanation that listing evidence and then stating a conclusion is not an adequate substitute for reasoning. The memo connected those principles to the structure of the actual decision: what the Board recited, what it emphasized, and what it failed to assess.
That approach avoided reducing the appeal to a disagreement over the percentage. It identified why the denial lacked the explanation needed for meaningful review.
The remand victory and its limits
I secured a CAVC remand of the claim for a rating above 70 percent during the period at issue. The joint motion identified the missing assessment and sought further adjudication consistent with the Board’s explanatory obligations.
The remand did not automatically increase the rating to 100 percent. It required the claim to be reconsidered with a legally adequate analysis of the evidence. The applicable level of impairment still had to be addressed in the further proceedings.
A decision must explain its conclusion
This case illustrates the difference between a decision that mentions evidence and one that meaningfully evaluates it. By listening to the client, reviewing the record, and organizing the legal argument, I challenged a denial that had not adequately explained how the relevant symptoms were assessed.
Discuss your Board appeal
I represent veterans and their families at the CAVC. Learn about my appellate representation or request a free Board decision review.
For more about this issue, read our related appeal guide. The ordinary Court filing deadline is 120 days after notice of the Board decision is issued. Contacting a law firm does not extend that deadline.
Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. A remand requires further proceedings and does not itself award benefits.
