The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased evaluations and effective dates for his service-connected disabilities, including right eye retinitis/sarcoid uveitis, pes planus, and a scar in the area of the right forehead.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not meet the criteria for compensable ratings or earlier effective dates as established by VA regulations and guidelines.
- Claimed conditions
- degenerative disc disease of the thoracolumbar spine, degenerative disc disease of the cervical spine, right eye retinitis/sarcoid uveitis, pes planus, scar in the area of the right forehead
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 15, 2008
- Citation
- 0835299
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 0835299.
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.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, finding that the Veteran's pre-existing pes planus condition was aggravated by service. The effective date is August 15, 2025.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis with pes planus, finding that her current condition had its onset during active military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's tinnitus and bilateral hearing loss are granted as service-connected. The Veteran's cervical spine disability is remanded for further examination to determine the current severity of his condition.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for service connection for pes planus was dismissed because he filed a supplemental claim after the AOJ had already addressed his initial denial, violating the AMA rule against concurrent jurisdiction.
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.