The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a head scar, residual of a traumatic head injury in November 2003. The Veteran has submitted new evidence that does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate his claim.
The deciding factor: The submitted evidence is insufficient to reopen the previously denied claim.
- Claimed conditions
- scar residual of a traumatic head injury, acquired psychiatric disability including anxiety and depression, cervical spine disability, memory loss, blackouts, aching hands, cirrhosis, tachycardia, epistaxis, anemia, abnormal liver function
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 18, 2011
- Citation
- 1102051
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 1102051.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for tinnitus, arthritis, and memory loss. The decision found no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.
- Denied
The Board denied the claims of service connection for cervical spine and skin rash disabilities, finding that there is no evidence linking these conditions to active military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the claims for miscarriage, cervical spine disability, lumbar spine disability, and right elbow disability due to insufficient examination opinions and incomplete service history verification.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits is remanded due to the AOJ's failure to address whether it is in the best interest of the Veteran to participate in the program. The Board finds that the Veteran has been in need of personal care services for at least six continuous months based on an inability to perform the ADL of bathing.
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.