The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for SMC based on the need for regular aid and attendance was denied as there was no pending claim prior to May 13, 2009. The effective date of May 13, 2009 is established based on a medical opinion dated that day.
The deciding factor: The Veteran did not file an informal claim or notice of disagreement prior to the November 2007 rating decision denying SMC based on need for regular aid and attendance. The effective date was assigned based on the May 13, 2009 medical opinion establishing the need for aid and attendance.
- Claimed conditions
- low back disability, peripheral neuropathy of the right hand, peripheral neuropathy of the left hand, peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, diabetes mellitus, type II, colitis, erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 27, 2013
- Citation
- 1310312
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1310312.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the claims for sleep apnea and an increased disability rating for diabetes mellitus, type II.
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.