The Board has ordered the case to be remanded for further development, including an examination and medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of any chronic dental disorders, to include loss of teeth. The veteran is required to report for this examination.
The deciding factor: The Court ordered compliance with the August 2007 joint motion, which requires addressing whether the appellant had developed Vincent's angina (trench mouth) as opposed to a herpetic infection during service and providing sufficient findings on this issue.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of Vincent's angina (trench mouth), loss of teeth
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- January 11, 2008
- Citation
- 0801298
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 0801298.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
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: Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal for compensation under 38 USC § 1151 for loss of teeth, and the appeal is dismissed.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including prostate cancer, CAD, and bilateral lower extremity nerve damage, have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board has granted the TDIU.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's initial claim for an increased rating for loss of teeth was denied as her disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under Diagnostic Code 9913.,The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for telogen effluvium (claimed as hair loss) was also denied, as there is no evidence that she has lost all body hair.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's attempts to appeal the denial of service connection for loss of teeth were not timely filed, and thus their appeals are dismissed.
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.