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

The Board has remanded the case due to deficiencies in its analysis regarding the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA).

The deciding factor: The Court found that the VCAA notice was deficient and required additional compliance with Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 37 (2008).

Claimed conditions
posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), coronary artery disease (CAD)
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
July 23, 2009
Citation
0927528

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 0927528.

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.