The Board found that the veteran's impotence is not secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus and denied the claim. The neuropathy claim was also considered, but no additional medical records were provided by the RO.
The deciding factor: The April 2004 VA examiner concluded that the veteran's sexual dysfunction (impotence) preceded his diagnosis of type II diabetes mellitus by eight years, making it unlikely to be caused or aggravated by the diabetes.
- Claimed conditions
- neuropathy, impotence
- How they argued it
- Secondary to another service-connected condition
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- August 11, 2006
- Citation
- 0624492
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,677 · Granted: 26% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed decisions on this site)
Outcome labels are AI-extracted from each decision; spot checks have found mislabels, so treat percentages as approximate.
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 0624492.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for SMC based on loss of use of both lower extremities is being remanded due to a failure to obtain relevant private medical records. The AOJ will consider these records when readjudicating the claim.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the eligibility determination for the PCAFC was inadequate due to an insufficient medical opinion, and thus remanded for further review.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence received, and a VA examination is needed to determine if the Veteran's erectile dysfunction with impotence is related to his service or any service-connected conditions.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's TDIU claim is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence, including SSA disability records. The AOJ will consider the recent grants of service connection in conjunction with the TDIU application.
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. How we handle your email.
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.