The Veteran's case is being remanded to the RO for consideration of additional evidence submitted since the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case in January 2009. The Veteran and his representative will be provided with an SSOC if the claim remains denied.
The deciding factor: Additional evidence was received after the issuance of the most recent Supplemental Statement of the Case, which must now be considered by the RO before a decision can be made.
- Claimed conditions
- Type II diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 20%
- Decision date
- June 16, 2009
- Citation
- 0922682
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 0922682.
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 Board denied a rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension and remanded the claims for increased ratings for bilateral eye vitreous body crystalline deposits and asteroid hyalosis, as well as Type II diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction.
- Granted
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities rendered him unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment prior to November 11, 2020, warranting a total rating for compensation purposes based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits.
- Granted
The Veteran's ambulance transportation on April 5, 2020 was for an acute UTI and met the prudent layperson definition of a medical emergency. The VA facility was not feasibly available, and the Veteran did not have other health insurance to cover the ambulance transportation. Therefore, payment or reimbursement is granted.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not result in the need for regular aid and attendance or housebound status, leading to a denial of SMC.
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.