The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for clarification of the effective date for the grant of service connection for sensory urgency of the bladder, and for issuance of a statement of the case regarding whether there was clear and unmistakable error in the March 1999 rating decision denying service connection for urethritis.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the RO did not comply with its previous remand instructions and thus requires another remand to address these issues.
- Claimed conditions
- sensory urgency of the bladder
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 10, 2013
- Citation
- 1315537
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 1315537.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran is seeking an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for sensory urgency of the bladder, which was originally granted in July 2006 with a January 20, 2006 effective date. The case has been remanded to clarify and assign the appropriate effective date.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for sensory urgency of the bladder is being remanded due to the need to adjudicate a separate claim regarding clear and unmistakable error in a previous decision.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected coronary artery disease, finding that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on the severity of his condition.
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.