The Board has determined that the evidence submitted since the August 1993 Hearing Officer's decision is not new and material, thus denying the veteran's request to reopen his claim regarding whether his head injuries in September 1980 were due to willful misconduct.
The deciding factor: The evidence does not show that the injuries sustained by the veteran in September 1980 were not caused by his willful misconduct.
- Claimed conditions
- head injuries
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 16, 2006
- Citation
- 0614268
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 0614268.
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.
- Partly granted
The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for injuries resulting from a July 1987 motor vehicle accident, but it remains unclear whether these injuries occurred during active duty or training. The evidence does not conclusively establish that the accident happened while on active duty or returning directly from such duty.
- Partly granted
The veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a left eye injury and head injuries have been reopened, but the claim for low back disorder remains denied as there is no competent evidence linking it to his active duty service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for sarcoidosis as new and relevant evidence has been received since the previous denial.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for tinnitus to correct a duty to assist error, as the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptoms were not adequately considered in the previous decision.
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.