The Board denied the claim for an earlier effective date for special monthly compensation benefits due to the absence of legal merit or lack of entitlement under the law.
The deciding factor: The appellant's claim is legally insufficient as there is no provision to allow a grant of the benefit sought on appeal.
- Claimed conditions
- Loss of vision in both eyes
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 100%
- Decision date
- November 28, 2000
- Citation
- 0030864
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 0030864.
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.