The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including review of new rating criteria and provision of VCAA notice.
The deciding factor: The decision was made based on regulatory changes that require a remand for further action as per the VCAA requirements.
- Claimed conditions
- shell fragment wound to the right thigh, shell fragment wound to the right (major) forearm, shell fragment wound to the abdomen
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 3, 2004
- Citation
- 0405799
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,374 · Granted: 19% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted 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. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0405799.
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.
- Denied
The Veteran's abdominal injury, including a shell fragment wound and exploratory laparotomy, is currently rated at 10 percent. The VA examiner found no evidence of service connection via the PACT Act or other presumptive conditions.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for residuals of a shell fragment wound to the right thigh, including scars and small retained shrapnel, is being remanded for further development.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for Kaposi's sarcoma and an increased rating for his shell fragment wound to the abdomen. The Veteran's diabetes mellitus was granted an effective date of December 10, 1999.
- Denied
The Board denied an extraschedular rating for the Veteran's service-connected lower back disorder and found that a TDIU is not warranted. The VA Director of Compensation and Pension Service found no evidence to warrant an extraschedular rating.
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.