The Board found that the September 1956 decision to sever service connection for pes cavus was not based on clear and unmistakable error, and denied reopening of the claim due to lack of new and material evidence.
The deciding factor: The decision to sever service connection was based on a finding that there was no other definite evidence of aggravation by service, which supported the presumption of aggravation. The veteran's contentions were not sufficient to overturn this conclusion.
- Claimed conditions
- pes cavus
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- February 6, 2003
- Citation
- 0302300
Veterans Law Judge
Acting
Decisions by this judge: 191 · Granted: 32% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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 0302300.
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 determined that the Veteran's initial claims for service connection were not properly considered and remanded to obtain a full copy of her service treatment records. The Veteran was also scheduled for an examination to determine if she had any current bilateral foot disorders, including pes planus, pes cavus, plantar fasciitis, heel spurs, or pain.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to an inadequate VA examination, requiring a new one with a proper evaluation of the Veteran's foot disabilities.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand two issues: service connection for common headaches (claimed as migraines) secondary to vitiligo and service connection for pes cavus. The Veteran's claims are being returned due to inadequate medical opinions in the original decision.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's claimed left foot disabilities, specifically pes cavus and metatarsalgia. The Veteran is required to undergo a VA examination to determine the nature of these conditions and their relationship to service.
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.