The Board denied an increased rating for chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia in May 1981. The veteran is requesting that the decision be revised or reversed on grounds of clear and unmistakable error, but the Board found no clear and unmistakable error.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the evidence did not support a reduction from a 100% rating to a 10% rating for schizophrenia at the time of the May 1981 decision. The veteran's disagreement with this finding does not constitute clear and unmistakable error.
- Claimed conditions
- chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 23, 2001
- Citation
- 0119141
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 0119141.
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.
- Partly granted
The Board granted readjudication of the previously denied claim for service connection for chronic undifferentiated schizophrenia and panic disorder, based on new evidence.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the VA examination and medical opinions are inadequate, as they improperly relied on lack of in-service evidence and failed to adequately address the Veteran's assertions regarding onset and continuity of symptoms. The case is therefore remanded for further development.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for TDIU and service connection is denied as there was no prior appeal of the initial denial in 1999, and the March 2011 claim satisfied the schedular criteria.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received after the issuance of a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC). The AOJ is required to review this new evidence and consider its impact on the decision.
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.