The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection of a missing tooth due to in-service extraction was denied as there was no evidence of dental trauma during active duty.
The deciding factor: The service medical records showed that the veteran had tooth number 18 extracted without his consent, but this did not constitute a finding of service connection because the regulations at the time required a determination of whether the condition was due to combat or other service trauma and if the veteran was a prisoner of war.
- Claimed conditions
- missing tooth, tooth extraction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 25, 2004
- Citation
- 0407878
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,500 · Granted: 17% (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 0407878.
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.
- Denied
The Veteran's claims for service connection and TDIU were denied. Service connection was not granted as there is no evidence of a dental disability that began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.
- Partly granted
The Board denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and hyperlipidemia. All other issues were remanded for further evaluation.
- Denied
The VA denied the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 because there was no evidence of fault on the part of VA in providing dental treatment, and informed consent was obtained.
- Granted
The Veteran's claim for compensation for tooth extraction, loss of sense of taste, and nerve deadening is denied. The claim for service connection for frostbite of the bilateral lower extremities has been reopened due to new evidence submitted since the previous denial in 2010. However, the Board finds that there is no evidence to support a finding of frostbite or cold injury residuals resulting from 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.