The Board has determined that the case must be remanded for compliance with new legal requirements, including informing the appellant of the type of evidence necessary to maintain her claim and providing adequate reasons and bases for its determinations.
The deciding factor: The decision is being remanded due to a failure to provide sufficient information to establish the claim and because of the need to comply with new legal requirements.
- Claimed conditions
- carcinomatosis due to or as a consequence of gastric adenocarcinoma
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- January 4, 2001
- Citation
- 0100132
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. Search VA.gov for the original decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 0100132.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Whole decision: Granted
Service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is granted. The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is dismissed.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to conflicting opinions regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and skin disabilities related to herbicide exposure.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's tinnitus is presumed to have been incurred in service due to noise exposure during his time in Vietnam.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
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.