The Board found that the January 1996 rating decision denying service connection for enlarged prostate and gall bladder disease did not include clear and unmistakable error, and thus the claims are not reopened.
The deciding factor: The RO considered all relevant evidence including the veteran's service medical records but concluded there was no current disability to support the claims.
- Claimed conditions
- enlarged prostate, gall bladder disease
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 9, 2006
- Citation
- 0613436
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,592 · 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 0613436.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his death. The claims for service connection and rating of various conditions have not progressed further.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for hypertension and enlarged prostate, finding that the Veteran did not serve in the Korean DMZ or otherwise expose to herbicide agents during his active duty. The evidence did not support a nexus between the conditions and service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection for an enlarged prostate, incontinence, and steroid-induced diabetes mellitus type II are being remanded due to the AOJ not considering his private treatment records.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for service connection for abdominal scars was implicitly denied in the August 1994 rating decision, as her surgeries were already addressed and rated under different diagnostic codes.
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.