The Board found that the Veteran's pes planus did not undergo an increase in severity during service and therefore, it was not aggravated by his military service. The Board also determined there is no evidence of a current bilateral leg disability secondary to pes planus.
The deciding factor: There is insufficient evidence to show that the Veteran's pes planus underwent an increase in severity during service or that he has a currently diagnosed bilateral leg disability secondary to pes planus.
- Claimed conditions
- pes planus, bilateral leg disability
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 21, 2011
- Citation
- 1111261
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 1111261.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for a neurological examination to determine if any diagnosed radiculopathy or other neurological disability affecting the lower extremities was caused or aggravated by service-connected conditions.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis, finding that the Veteran's pre-existing pes planus condition was aggravated by service. The effective date is August 15, 2025.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral plantar fasciitis with pes planus, finding that her current condition had its onset during active military service.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for service connection for pes planus was dismissed because he filed a supplemental claim after the AOJ had already addressed his initial denial, violating the AMA rule against concurrent jurisdiction.
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.