The Board has determined that the appellant does not meet the criteria for special monthly pension by reason of need for regular aid and attendance, as her conditions do not necessitate constant personal assistance.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not show that the appellant is unable to dress or undress herself, keep herself clean and presentable, feed herself, attend to her wants of nature, or protect herself from daily hazards without assistance.
- Claimed conditions
- mature bilateral cataracts, moderate sensorineural hearing loss bilaterally (presbycusis), atrial fibrillation secondary to hypertensive vascular disease, diabetes mellitus type II, hyperuricemia, old cerebrovascular accident, infarct, multiple degenerative joint disease, low back pain
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- August 8, 2006
- Citation
- 0623902
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,643 · Granted: 15% (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 0623902.
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: Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Whole decision: Granted
The claim for service connection of a low back disability was reopened due to the submission of new and material evidence. The claim is denied as there is no evidence that the current condition is related to service.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for service connection of coronary artery disease, diabetes mellitus type II, diabetic nephropathy, and prostate cancer. The issues of entitlement to special monthly compensation based on housebound status and eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) are remanded.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Board has granted service connection for erectile dysfunction, which is secondary to the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II and panic disorder with insomnia. The decision finds that the evidence is at least evenly balanced as to whether the erectile dysfunction was caused by these conditions.
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.