The veteran's request for service connection for knee arthritis is being remanded due to the need for further evidentiary development.
The deciding factor: The claim requires additional evidence and development as requested by the appellant.
- Claimed conditions
- knee arthritis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 14, 2006
- Citation
- 0639028
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,458 · Granted: 24% (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 0639028.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for skin rash, hand/knuckles disability, shoulder strain, and pes planus. The claims for gastro issues, right knee strain, knee arthritis, back problems as secondary to knee, and ankle condition were remanded for further development.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for joint pain, finding that there was no evidence of a current disability related to his military service. The Board concluded that any joint conditions were less likely than not due to service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided the appeal is remanded due to the need for an addendum medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral knee condition, including arthritis noted in February 2017. The claim will be readjudicated based on the additional evidence.
- Denied
The Board has determined that the appellant does not meet the criteria for special monthly dependency and indemnity compensation (SMC or increased DIC) based on need for aid and attendance of another person, or being housebound.
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.