The Board denied the veteran's claim for a higher schedular rating for his cardiac disability and remanded the ancillary issue of whether he is entitled to a higher rating on an extra-schedular basis. The decision found that the regular schedular standards adequately described and provided for the veteran's disability level - 60 percent.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the veteran's case did not meet the criteria for referral to the Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Service for extra-schedular consideration as his disability was adequately compensated by the current schedular rating.
- Claimed conditions
- aortic insufficiency, history of an aortic aneurysm
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 60%
- Decision date
- December 13, 2006
- Citation
- 0638867
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 0638867.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for service connection for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, aortic insufficiency, hypertensive heart disease (claimed as ischemic heart disease/coronary artery disease) as a result of exposure to herbicides.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's heart disability is being remanded for further development to determine if the care provided by VA was reasonably foreseeable and caused his condition.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case for an addendum VA opinion due to inconsistencies in the medical opinions provided.
- Partly granted
The June 1985 rating decision denying service connection for aortic insufficiency should be reversed due to clear and unmistakable error (CUE), as the RO's determination that there was no indication of aortic insufficiency in service was factually erroneous. The outcome would have been manifestly different had this error not been made.
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.