The Board found no evidence of an increase in severity of vitiligo or fainting spells during service, and thus denied both claims.
The deciding factor: There was no clear and unmistakable evidence showing that the veteran's conditions increased in severity during active duty service.
- Claimed conditions
- vitiligo, fainting spells
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- June 6, 2002
- Citation
- 0205965
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 0205965.
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 Board has decided to remand the cases of service connection for vitiligo and obstructive sleep apnea due to inadequate VA examinations. The Veteran will need new VA examinations to address these issues.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Board has granted service connection for vitiligo, finding that the Veteran's current condition started during his active duty service and had continuity to the present. The decision is based on the Veteran's lay statements and VA treatment records.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the issues of service connection for various cancers and related conditions due to errors in obtaining relevant medical records and inadequate opinions regarding their etiology.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error, requiring an additional medical opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's vitiligo.
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.