The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not file a timely Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with respect to the March 2003 decision denying eligibility for VA benefits.
The deciding factor: The appellant failed to submit a timely NOD within one year from the date of notification of the March 2003 rating decision, as required by law.
- Claimed conditions
- peptic ulcer, gunshot wound of the left thigh
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 7, 2006
- Citation
- 0619811
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 0619811.
What this means for you
A dismissal means the Board did not decide the issue on its merits — usually because it was withdrawn or had become moot. It says more about procedure than about whether a claim like this can win.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for hypertension and erectile dysfunction, both presumed to be due to herbicide exposure. The claims for hypertrophy of the prostate, migraine headaches, and peptic ulcer were remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the matter for an adequate VA examination and to obtain missing treatment records.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for depression, peptic ulcer, bilateral hearing loss, vertigo, bilateral ankle condition, bilateral elbow condition, foot condition, bilateral hip condition, bilateral knee condition, and bilateral wrist condition as the persuasive weight of the evidence indicated these conditions were not etiologically related to active service.
- Dismissed
The Board dismissed the Veteran's claim for revision of a June 1985 rating decision that denied a rating higher than 30 percent for psychiatric disability on the basis of clear and unmistakable error, finding the Veteran and his attorney failed to set forth the alleged error with specificity and legal or factual basis. The dismissal is without prejudice to refiling.
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.