BVA decisions by condition
Traumatic brain injury: BVA grant rates and what wins
From 2018 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a traumatic brain injury issue in 625 decisions. It granted the traumatic brain injury issue in 20.3% of them, close to the 19.9% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 35.4%, and remanded it in 41.9%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 36.5% were granted.
Decisions
625
2018–2026
Granted
20.3%
All conditions: 19.9%
Granted on the merits
36.5%
Granted ÷ (granted + denied)
Remanded
41.9%
Denied: 35.4%
Traumatic brain injury outcomes by year
| Year | Decisions | Granted | Denied | Remanded |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2018 | 53 | 18.9% | 28.3% | 43.4% |
| 2020 | 62 | 12.9% | 35.5% | 48.4% |
| 2021 | 70 | 18.6% | 40.0% | 37.1% |
| 2022 | 58 | 13.8% | 43.1% | 43.1% |
| 2023 | 75 | 21.3% | 29.3% | 48.0% |
| 2024 | 101 | 26.7% | 34.7% | 37.6% |
| 2025 | 118 | 21.2% | 40.7% | 34.7% |
Evidence in granted and denied traumatic brain injury decisions
For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the traumatic brain injury issue on the merits when the decision mentioned it, compared with decisions that did not. These are associations, not causes, and evidence is recorded per decision, not per issue.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Positive nexus opinion | 170 | 65.5% | 21.4% | +44.1 pts |
| Favorable VA exam | 147 | 59.8% | 26.1% | +33.7 pts |
| Combat service | 110 | 51.5% | 33.0% | +18.5 pts |
| Private medical opinion | 209 | 41.3% | 33.9% | +7.4 pts |
| Lay statement | 569 | 34.7% | 60.0% | −25.3 pts |
- The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 74.0% of the decisions that granted traumatic brain injury.
- The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 47.2% of grants and 18.6% of denials.
Negative evidence in the record
An unfavorable exam or a negative nexus opinion often sits in the same record as favorable evidence, and the Board weighs them against each other. So these rows show how often traumatic brain injury was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.
| In the record | Decisions | Granted when present | When absent | Difference |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Negative nexus opinion | 344 | 34.8% | 39.1% | −4.4 pts |
| Unfavorable VA exam | 526 | 33.7% | 55.6% | −21.9 pts |
Why the Board granted or denied traumatic brain injury
Most common reasons in grants
- Current diagnosis established9
- Veteran diagnosed with TBI2
- Service records negative or silent2
- In-service head injury documented2
- Current TBI diagnosis2
- Positive nexus opinion from VA examiner2
Most common reasons in denials
- No current diagnosis42
- Service records negative or silent20
- Preponderance of the evidence against the claim17
- VA examiner: less likely than not related to service13
- No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis7
- Current diagnosis established5
- No current TBI diagnosis5
- Veteran not competent to diagnose TBI3
Numbers are decisions that gave the reason. Reasons are short phrases extracted by AI from each decision; common wordings of the same reason are grouped. Benefit of the doubt is reported above.
Recent traumatic brain injury decisions
Granted
Benefit of the doubt applied; VA opinion found TBI due to eye removal at least as likely as not proximately due to or the result of acquired anophthalmia post enucleation; Optic nerve injury is part of the CNS, thus injuring the brain
In-service injury reported from bomb explosion with loss of consciousness; Subsequent cognitive difficulties (memory, processing); Favorable VA exam opinion linking TBI to service
Private examiner opinion linked fall to Alzheimer's disease; Resolved reasonable doubt in Veteran's favor; Established causal relationship between Alzheimer's and TBI
Denied
Service records lack evidence of head injury beyond a laceration.; Veteran's claims of assault/falls and subsequent symptoms are inconsistent and unsupported.; No current diagnosis of TBI supported by objective evidence.
Veteran's statements regarding accident timing, circumstances, and recollections were inconsistent and not credible.; Service treatment records did not document head trauma or loss of consciousness related to the in-service accident.; Private opinion lacked probative value due to remote nature and failure to address conflicting evidence.
Injuries from July 1993 MVA determined to be willful misconduct and not in line of duty.; Service department findings unanimously show appellant's reckless driving, intoxication, and non-compliance with police orders as proximate cause of injuries.; Service records confirm MVA caused by driving under the influence on wrong side of highway.; Service department found injuries not incurred in line of duty and due to veteran's misconduct.
Rules that apply to traumatic brain injury claims
- 38 CFR 3.303
Principles of service connection
Read it in VA Law Explorer - 38 CFR 3.310
Secondary service connection and aggravation
Read it in VA Law Explorer - 38 CFR 3.102
Reasonable doubt (benefit of the doubt)
Read it in VA Law Explorer
Research your traumatic brain injury case
Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.
How these numbers are calculated
- Rates count decisions in which the Board decided a traumatic brain injury issue, by the outcome of that issue. Other issues in the same decision can have different outcomes.
- “Granted on the merits” leaves out remands and dismissals. “All conditions” is the grant share across every condition issue in the data.
- The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2018–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.