The RO denied the veteran's claim for VA death benefits. The case is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center (AMC) in Washington, DC, for further action.
The deciding factor: The NPRC could not verify the decedent's service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces. The case is remanded to provide additional documents and request another attempt at verification.
- Claimed conditions
- unknown
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 18, 2006
- Citation
- 0639264
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 108 · Granted: 15% (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 0639264.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran's eligibility for a Level 2 stipend under VA's PCAFC is in dispute due to insufficient medical review regarding his need for supervision, protection or instruction on a continuous basis. The case is being remanded for further evaluation.
- Denied
The VA correctly calculated and paid retroactive compensation benefits to the Veteran for the period from May 1, 2024 through September 30, 2025. The appeal is denied as additional retroactive VA compensation is not warranted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the issue on appeal should be characterized as entitlement to additional dependency compensation for P. J. C., the Veteran's minor child, and has found a pre-decisional duty to assist error in not including information or evidence from SSA regarding the disputed SSN provided by the Veteran.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's challenges to the creation and validity of her overpayment debt. The overpayment was found to be properly created, but the amount was recalculated based on a one-year period from October 2, 2019, to October 31, 2020. The waiver claim for recoupment of the overpayment was denied due to fault of both parties and potential financial hardship.
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.