The Board in January 1990 did not address the veteran's claim for service connection for side effects of Indocin. The veteran is now requesting that this decision be revised due to clear and unmistakable error (CUE). However, his motion fails to meet the pleading requirements for a valid CUE claim.
The deciding factor: The veteran failed to clearly specify the alleged errors in the January 1990 Board decision that would have resulted in a different outcome if not made.
- Claimed conditions
- side effects of Indocin
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 3, 2000
- Citation
- 0000035
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0000035.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the issue of entitlement to service connection for a back disability due to a duty to assist error, specifically regarding VA's failure to provide the Veteran with a VA examination prior to the rating decision.
- Granted
The Board granted a 50 percent rating for the Veteran's migraine headaches based on prostrating attacks occurring more than once a month and severe economic inadaptability.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's appeal for special monthly compensation based on loss of use of his left foot, as there was no evidence showing that the service-connected conditions resulted in functional limitation equal to that of amputation of the left foot with prosthesis.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.