The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected sebaceous cysts, multiple is being remanded due to the inadequacy of a previous VA examination. The case needs to be readjudicated with consideration of whether separate evaluations are warranted for scars located in multiple areas.
The deciding factor: The VA examination was inadequate and did not address the extent of scarring on the neck, back, buttocks, groin region, or any other identified areas as well as functional impairment associated with the scars.
- Claimed conditions
- sebaceous cysts
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- August 9, 2006
- Citation
- 0624057
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,599 · Granted: 37% (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 0624057.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
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: Denied
The Board denied service connection for skin disorders, including basal and squamous cell carcinomas, sebaceous cysts, and pityriasis rosea, as there is no evidence linking these conditions to the Veteran's military service or herbicide exposure.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for sebaceous cysts, finding no evidence of a relationship to service or any other compensable period.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability was reopened due to the submission of new evidence. The case is remanded for additional development, including obtaining non-VA treatment records and an adequate VA medical opinion regarding the etiology of his skin disabilities.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The VA has remanded the case due to incomplete treatment records and the need for a new examination to assess the current severity of the Veteran's acne vulgaris with sebaceous cysts.
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.