The Veteran's claim for service connection for squamous cell carcinoma, base of tongue, to include as due to herbicide exposure is being granted. A VA medical statement indicated that the cancer may be related to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam.
The deciding factor: A March 2005 statement from the Veteran's treating psychiatrist suggested a possible link between the cancer and Agent Orange exposure.
- Claimed conditions
- squamous cell carcinoma, base of tongue
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 12, 2012
- Citation
- 1201141
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 1201141.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for squamous cell carcinoma, base of tongue (throat cancer) due to exposure to ionizing radiation during active duty. The decision is based on the Veteran's credible and corroborated assertions that he was exposed to residual radiation while stationed at Pacific Missile Range Facility in Kwajalein, Marshall Islands from August 1961 to August 1962.
- Denied
The Board has determined that new and material evidence sufficient to reopen the claim of service connection for squamous cell carcinoma, base of tongue was not received. The Veteran's claim remains denied.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
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.