The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including a VA examination to determine the etiology of hyperventilation syndrome and encephalocele. The issues on appeal are whether service connection should be granted for residuals of a head injury with epilepsy, left hemiparesis, encephalocele, and craniotomy, as well as for hyperventilation syndrome.
The deciding factor: The Board has ordered further development to gather more evidence regarding the etiology of the veteran's conditions.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of a head injury with epilepsy, left hemiparesis, encephalocele, craniotomy
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 22, 2003
- Citation
- 0336028
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 0336028.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that there was a pre-decisional duty to assist error and the claims are remanded for further action, including an adequate VA examination and medical opinion.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's child is not eligible for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1805 for spina bifida because the appellant's mother was not a Vietnam Veteran.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded due to conflicting information from his employers and incomplete wage information. The Board will clarify the employer information and obtain updated earnings data.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that there was not substantial compliance with its previous remand directives and thus the case is being returned to VA for further development, including a new examination.
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.