The veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than August 26, 1996, for service connection for pes planus and hallux valgus with probable tarsal coalition was denied. The effective date is set at the date of receipt of the reopened claim, which is September 5, 1996.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date did not meet the criteria as it pertained to the proper effective date being the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever was later. In this case, the date of receipt of the claim was September 5, 1996.
- Claimed conditions
- pes planus, hallux valgus, probable tarsal coalition
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 10%
- Decision date
- March 13, 2001
- Citation
- 0107394
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 0107394.
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.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, finding that the Veteran's pre-existing pes planus condition was aggravated by service. The effective date is August 15, 2025.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for hallux valgus, finding no competent and credible evidence linking her current condition to active service.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis with pes planus, finding that her current condition had its onset during active military service.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for service connection for pes planus was dismissed because he filed a supplemental claim after the AOJ had already addressed his initial denial, violating the AMA rule against concurrent jurisdiction.
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.