The Board found that the metastatic melanoma which caused the veteran's death was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been otherwise incurred in service.,The basic eligibility requirements for entitlement to Dependents' Educational Assistance allowance under Chapter 35 were not met.
The deciding factor: There is no medical evidence or opinion of record which would tend to indicate that the veteran's fatal melanoma began during his period of active service, within one year of his separation from active service, or was related to any incident of his service, to include his exposure to herbicides during service.
- Claimed conditions
- metastatic melanoma, nodular melanoma
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 12, 2003
- Citation
- 0312676
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 0312676.
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.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for metastatic melanoma, finding that it is related to in-service sun exposure.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for nodular melanoma, finding that the evidence does not support a causal relationship between the condition and his military service.
- Denied
The Veteran's cause of death was not related to his military service, including any in-service dental work or ionizing radiation exposure. The Board denied the claim for service connection.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty to assist error, specifically regarding the relationship between the Veteran's atherosclerotic cerebrovascular accident and his in-service exposure to herbicide agents. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion on whether this condition qualifies as ischemic heart disease for purposes of presumptive service connection.
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.