The Board has remanded the case due to inconsistencies in the appellant's service records and the need for further development, including verification of his reserve duty service prior to June 1987.
The deciding factor: The Board found that there were inconsistencies in the appellant's service records and required further action from the RO to verify his dates of active duty and active duty for training prior to June 1987.
- Claimed conditions
- Wolff-Parkinson-White syndrome
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 29, 2000
- Citation
- 0034081
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 0034081.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
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.