The veteran's service-connected disabilities do not render him unable to care for his daily living needs without the aid and attendance of another person.
The deciding factor: The veteran's service-connected conditions, while disabling, do not necessitate regular aid and attendance as they do not prevent him from caring for himself in routine daily activities.
- Claimed conditions
- depressive neurosis, residuals of a right index finger fracture, residuals of a right second toe fracture, appendectomy scar, residuals of a left eye injury
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- June 14, 2001
- Citation
- 0116259
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 0116259.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
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The Veteran's appeals were withdrawn, and his claims for increased ratings and service connection were dismissed. The Board found no evidence of ankylosis or other disabling conditions that would warrant higher ratings.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The appeal of the denial of readjudication of entitlement to service connection for depression, depressive neurosis is dismissed due to a Notice of Disagreement being duplicative of an earlier one.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding whether the Veteran's appendectomy scar was aggravated by Agent Orange exposure or asbestos exposure during service. The appellant must be provided with a VA opinion to address these theories of aggravation.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities do not result in the need of personal care services, and his PCAFC request was denied. The Board finds that the AOJ did not provide proper notice and reasoning for the denial, and thus remands the case to obtain a new determination based on updated regulations.
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.