Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)PACT Act

The Veteran is seeking to reopen his claims for service connection for chronic ischemic heart disease and degenerative joint and disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine, as well as hypertension secondary to diabetes. He also seeks service connection for PTSD and erectile dysfunction secondary to diabetes, and chloracne secondary to herbicide exposure.,The Veteran is seeking to reopen his claim for service connection for degenerative joint and disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine, as well as hypertension secondary to diabetes. He also seeks service connection for PTSD and erectile dysfunction secondary to diabetes, and chloracne secondary to herbicide exposure.,,,The Veteran is seeking service connection for PTSD based on in-service stressors, but his claim has not been verified by the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC).,The Veteran is seeking service connection for chloracne secondary to herbicide exposure.

The deciding factor: The claims are being remanded due to the need for additional notice under Kent v. Nicholson, as well as further examination and review of the record regarding the nature and etiology of the claimed conditions.,The claims are being remanded due to the need for additional notice under Kent v. Nicholson, as well as further examination and review of the record regarding the nature and etiology of the claimed conditions.,,,The claim is being remanded because the in-service stressor has not been verified by the U.S. Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC).,The claim is being remanded due to the need for further examination regarding the nature and etiology of the claimed condition.

Claimed conditions
chronic ischemic heart disease, degenerative joint and disc disease of the lumbar and cervical spine, hypertension, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), erectile dysfunction, chloracne
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
April 10, 2009
Citation
0913435

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 0913435.

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.

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.