The Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen any of the veteran's claims for service connection due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The claims were denied as there was no showing of related in-service injury or disease, and none of the conditions are considered radiogenic diseases.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not establish that the veteran is a radiation-exposed veteran as defined by VA regulations.
- Claimed conditions
- fibromatosis on the inside of the right cheek, skin condition of the hands (other than basal cell carcinoma), rectal abscess, back disability with arthritis
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 16, 2006
- Citation
- 0631933
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 609 · Granted: 22% (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 0631933.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for service connection on the issues of degenerative osteoarthritis, bronchitis, seborrheic keratosis, a low back disorder, a rectal abscess status post excision, and headaches with dizziness have been dismissed. The Board has also remanded these issues for further development.
- Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's claimed disabilities are not related to his military service and denied each claim.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death during the pendency of the appeal.
- Denied
The Board found that the appellant's periodontal disease and subsequent rectal abscess and rectal fistula are not service-connected due to lack of evidence showing a direct link. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was also denied as there is no indication of VA negligence or fault in the treatment provided.
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.