The Board has determined that the evidence received since the September 1997 rating decision is not new and material, and thus does not provide a basis to reopen the veteran's claim of entitlement to service connection for hyperlipidemia.
The deciding factor: The new evidence submitted by the appellant is cumulative or redundant and does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the service connection claim for hyperlipidemia.
- Claimed conditions
- hyperlipidemia
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 8, 2006
- Citation
- 0613279
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,467 · Granted: 18% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed 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. Search VA.gov for the original decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 0613279.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to errors in developing evidence related to possible ionizing radiation exposure and TERA participation. The claim will be reconsidered with proper development of this information.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Board has determined that the Veteran's chronic anxiety disorder, which was related to service, contributed substantially to his death from a stroke caused by diabetes mellitus, hyperlipidemia, and hypertension. The Board granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the March 2025 decision denying eligibility for PCAFC benefits is legally inadequate and remands the case to allow for a new medical determination considering all relevant evidence, including the Veteran's conditions and functional ability.
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.