The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a distal fibular injury, finding that it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service parachute jump. The issue of loss of front teeth was dismissed due to withdrawal by the Veteran.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner opined that the Veteran's condition is at least as likely as not related to an in-service parachuting injury, based on the Veteran's statements and radiographs confirming an old, remote fracture.
- Claimed conditions
- loss of front teeth, residuals of a distal fibular injury
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 17, 2013
- Citation
- 1312740
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 1312740.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical opinions regarding the nature and etiology of his claimed conditions and their relationship to service-connected right knee disability.
- Denied
The Board has determined that there is no nexus between the Veteran's current diagnosis of loss of front teeth and service, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.
- Denied
The Board found no evidence linking the Veteran's current loss of front teeth to service, specifically attributing it to an in-service lip injury. The Veteran only has one service-connected disability (tinea pedis) and is not totally disabled due to a service-connected condition.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for a Travel Board Hearing at the RO due to the Veterans Law Judge who conducted the October 2009 hearing is no longer employed by the Board. The Veteran requested this, and the case will be returned to the RO for further action.
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.