The appeal is remanded to the Appeals Management Center for additional development, as the June 2006 Board decision has been vacated and new evidence must be considered.
The deciding factor: The claim requires further development due to the need to consider newly received evidence in conjunction with the veteran's request for an increased evaluation.
- Claimed conditions
- status post cervical strain
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 16, 2008
- Citation
- 0812653
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,582 · Granted: 32% (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 0812653.
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 Veteran's TDIU claim is remanded as the VA needs to assess the collective impact of his service-connected disabilities on his ability to work.
- Denied
The Board has determined that the Veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than August 27, 2001 for service connection for myofascitis of the neck, status post cervical strain is denied as his reopened claim was received on August 27, 2001.
- Denied
The VA denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected cervical strain, finding that it did not meet the criteria for a higher rating based on current medical evidence.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
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.