The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of July 29, 1996 for a 10 percent rating for synovitis of the left wrist.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not show that entitlement to the increased rating was factually ascertainable within one year prior to receipt of the July 29, 1996 claim.
- Claimed conditions
- synovitis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- June 29, 2001
- Citation
- 0117508
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 0117508.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's SMC and TDIU claims are remanded due to a duty to assist error regarding the assessment of his service-connected bilateral hand palmar hyperkeratosis. A VA examination is needed to determine if there is loss of use of the hands, including distinguishing between symptoms attributable to the service-connected condition and any non-service-connected conditions.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remanded the veteran's claim for service connection of bilateral flat foot with plantar fasciitis due to inadequate medical opinions. The veteran will receive a new opinion considering all evidence.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the inadequacy of the September 2020 VA examination, which did not provide an estimate for passive range of motion testing. The Veteran needs a new VA examination to rectify this deficiency.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for increased ratings were dismissed due to his death. The Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of these claims as he passed away during the appeal process.
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.