The Board dismissed the appeals regarding whether there was CUE in rating decisions dated in January 1960, March 1960, and April 1968 with respect to the reduction in compensation, the assigned rating and effective date of compensation for sinusitis, maxillary and frontal, for accrued benefits purposes.,The Board dismissed the appeals regarding entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for bilateral blepharitis, for accrued benefits purposes; entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for maxillary and frontal sinusitis with hypertrophic rhinitis, for accrued benefits purposes; and entitlement to TDIU, for accrued benefits purposes.,The Board dismissed the appeal regarding whether an effective date earlier than June 28, 2001, for the award of service connection for bilateral eyelid laxity secondary to bilateral blepharitis, for accrued benefits purposes.
The deciding factor: The appellant did not provide a formal or informal claim prior to the receipt of the June 28, 2001, claim regarding the effective date.,There was no indication that the Veteran wished to pursue secondary service connection for eyelid laxity as part of his original claims. The issue was not raised until after the June 28, 2001, claim.,The appellant did not provide a formal or informal claim prior to the receipt of the June 28, 2001, claim regarding service connection for bilateral eyelid laxity secondary to bilateral blepharitis.
- Claimed conditions
- sinusitis, maxillary and frontal sinusitis with hypertrophic rhinitis, bilateral blepharitis, bilateral eyelid laxity
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 20, 2010
- Citation
- 1035489
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 1035489.
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A dismissal means the Board did not decide the issue on its merits — usually because it was withdrawn or had become moot.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 found a pre-decisional duty to assist error and has ordered the case back to the AOJ for proper notice regarding the Veteran's right to a hearing.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's initial claim for an increased rating for sinusitis is being remanded due to a failure by the AOJ to provide proper notice of his right to a hearing.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has denied service connection for sinusitis and remanded the Veteran's claims for chronic lower back pain, right knee pain, left knee pain, neck pain, and GERD.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to errors in obtaining relevant medical records and authorization for private treatment providers. The issues include heart disorder, OSA, sinusitis, lumbar spine disorder, and right knee disorder all related to Agent Orange exposure.
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.