Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Granted

The Veteran's chronic liver disability is not related to his military service, including herbicide exposure. The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of tinea pedis (athlete's foot) and grants service connection for this condition.,Bilateral hearing loss was not caused by the Veteran's active service. Tinnitus was found to be due to acoustic trauma during service. Service connection is granted for these conditions.,The Board finds that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of throat nodules, which are presumed to have been caused by herbicide exposure in Vietnam. Service connection is granted for this condition.,Service connection is denied for residuals of a left leg wound and tinea pedis (athlete's foot).,Bilateral hearing loss disability was not incurred or aggravated during service. The Veteran has current bilateral hearing loss, which is presumed to have been caused by in-service noise exposure.

The deciding factor: The Veteran's chronic liver disability does not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection due to herbicide exposure.,Bilateral hearing loss was not incurred during service and is not related to any diagnosed condition. The current bilateral hearing loss is presumed to have been caused by in-service noise exposure.,Throat nodules are presumed to be related to herbicide exposure, as the Veteran served in Vietnam. Service connection is granted for this condition.,The residuals of a left leg wound and tinea pedis (athlete's foot) do not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection due to herbicide exposure or other factors.,Bilateral hearing loss disability was not incurred during service, as it is presumed to have been caused by in-service noise exposure.

Claimed conditions
chronic liver disability, tinea pedis (athlete's foot), throat nodules, tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss disability, residuals of left leg wound
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
February 7, 2013
Citation
1304536

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 1304536.

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.

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.