The Board has granted the appellant's request to reopen his claim for service connection of Multiple Sclerosis and determined that it was incurred during a period of Active Duty Training (ACDUTRA). The Board also found that he is entitled to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for the additional disability of a sacral pressure sore as a result of surgical and medical treatment by VA in 1992.
The deciding factor: The evidence presented, including statements from the appellant, a private physician's opinion, and an independent medical expert's report, provided new and material evidence to support the claim that Multiple Sclerosis was incurred during ACDUTRA. The Board also found that the additional disability of a sacral pressure sore is related to VA treatment.
- Claimed conditions
- Multiple Sclerosis
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 8, 2005
- Citation
- 0518643
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 0518643.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
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 decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining records of the Appellant's reserve component service and conducting a VA examination to determine if her multiple sclerosis is related to service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that new and relevant evidence has been received to warrant readjudication of the previously denied claims for service connection for Multiple Sclerosis, Hypertension, and Headaches. The case is being remanded to allow for further consideration.
- Denied
The Veteran's right foot AFO brace did not cause wear and tear to her clothing, specifically pants, during the 2022 calendar year. Therefore, she is denied a clothing allowance for that year.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding private treatment records from June 2015 to October 2017. The Veteran is asked to provide authorization for these records.
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.