The Board has determined that the Veteran's timely substantive appeal was not filed within the required timeframe, and thus his claims for service connection were denied.
The deciding factor: The Veteran did not file a timely VA Form 9 with the Houston RO by February 16, 2007, which is more than 60 days after the issuance of the statement of the case on December 6, 2006 and more than one year following the August 31, 2005 notification letter.
- Claimed conditions
- peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, erectile dysfunction, skin discoloration
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- July 17, 2012
- Citation
- 1224643
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 1224643.
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.
- 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.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for obstructive sleep apnea, peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper extremities, and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his active service or any related exposure.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, visual impairment, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction due to lack of exposure to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claims were not granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
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.