The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date prior to February 3, 2000 for the grant of service connection for multiple sclerosis. The veteran was previously denied in a February 1996 rating decision and did not appeal it. His request to reopen his claim was received on February 3, 2000. Therefore, an effective date prior to February 3, 2000 is not warranted.
The deciding factor: The effective date of service connection based on new and material evidence following an earlier denial is the date of receipt of the new claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. In this case, the first medical evidence was in 1987, and the veteran's request to reopen based on new and material evidence was received on February 3, 2000.
- Claimed conditions
- Multiple Sclerosis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- September 14, 2006
- Citation
- 0629038
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,547 · Granted: 20% (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 0629038.
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 Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining records of the Appellant's reserve component service and conducting a VA examination to determine if her multiple sclerosis is related to service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that new and relevant evidence has been received to warrant readjudication of the previously denied claims for service connection for Multiple Sclerosis, Hypertension, and Headaches. The case is being remanded to allow for further consideration.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's right foot AFO brace did not cause wear and tear to her clothing, specifically pants, during the 2022 calendar year. Therefore, she is denied a clothing allowance for that year.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically regarding private treatment records from June 2015 to October 2017. The Veteran is asked to provide authorization for these records.
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.