The Board denied service connection for a low back disability in April 2000 and the veteran did not appeal. The claim was reopened based on new evidence, but it does not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.,The veteran's erectile dysfunction is not due to VA prescribed medications as there is no evidence showing that carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault by VA caused his disability.
The deciding factor: There was insufficient evidence linking the current low back disability to service. The new evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.,The veteran's erectile dysfunction is due to multiple factors including vascular disease, medication use, and other medical conditions, but there is no evidence showing that VA care caused or aggravated his condition.
- Claimed conditions
- low back disability, erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 3, 2008
- Citation
- 0837870
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 0837870.
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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, visual impairment, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction due to lack of exposure to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claims were not granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes mellitus type II (DM II), hypertension, and erectile dysfunction as secondary to service-connected DM II. The Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during active service is presumed.
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.