The Board denied the veteran's claims for compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 and an increased evaluation for his service-connected gunshot wound to the left leg.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating or compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 due to lack of severe impairment in the left leg, as defined by VA regulations.
- Claimed conditions
- Hemangioma at the base of the tongue, Pedunculated mass at the anterior wall of the trachea, Dysphagia, Hoarseness
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 11, 2006
- Citation
- 0624506
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 499 · Granted: 18% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted 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. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0624506.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied a compensable rating for the Veteran's GERD with hiatal hernia and dysphagia, finding that there was no documented history of esophageal stricture requiring daily medications to control dysphagia.
- Granted
The Veteran's xerostomia with difficulty swallowing and difficulty speaking is now rated at 10 percent, effective as of the date of this decision. The claim for a separate rating for dental or oral conditions due to xerostomia was denied.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for Inclusion Body Myositis with Dysphagia, finding that the Veteran's condition was caused by toxic exposures during his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's need for personal care services and whether participation in PCAFC would be beneficial. The VA will obtain an opinion from CEAT on these matters.
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.