The appeal for an earlier effective date for the grant of increased evaluation for PTSD was dismissed as the Veteran withdrew his appeal. The claim for service connection for skin cancer was denied due to lack of evidence supporting a diagnosis of skin cancer and no nexus to service.
The deciding factor: The decision was based on the absence of medical evidence diagnosing skin cancer, and the lack of a demonstrated link between any diagnosed condition and the Veteran's military service. The claim for erectile dysfunction as secondary to PTSD was not addressed due to the need for further examination.
- Claimed conditions
- Skin cancer, Erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 11, 2009
- Citation
- 0909009
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 141 · Granted: 20% (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 0909009.
What this means for you
A dismissal means the Board did not decide the issue on its merits — usually because it was withdrawn or had become moot. It says more about procedure than about whether a claim like this can win.
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 remanded the claims for further development due to insufficient evidence and need for additional examinations.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of prostate cancer due to VA's failure to notify him of his April 17, 2008, elevated PSA test results and its failure to timely diagnose and properly treat his disease.
- Granted
The Veteran's September 4, 2024 HLR request was improperly rejected by the AOJ. The Board finds that the request is timely and valid, and reinstates the claims for earlier effective dates and increased ratings.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected conditions do not meet the criteria for special monthly compensation based on the need of regular aid and attendance due to his psychiatric symptoms.
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.