The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining quality-assurance records and treatment records. The claims of compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for rectal fissure and whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a bilateral leg condition are being referred back to the RO.
The deciding factor: The Board finds that remand is necessary due to the need for additional development, including obtaining quality-assurance records and treatment records. The claims of compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for rectal fissure and whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for a bilateral leg condition are being referred back to the RO.
- Claimed conditions
- rectal fissure, bilateral leg condition
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 20, 2013
- Citation
- 1319855
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 1319855.
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 Board has found new and relevant evidence to warrant readjudication of the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral pes planus, a bilateral shoulder condition, a bilateral leg condition, a neck condition, and a keloid condition. These claims are remanded for further adjudication by the AOJ.
- Dismissed
The appeal concerning the disability evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected residuals of a neck strain is dismissed. The Veteran's claim for TDIU was denied as he does not meet the criteria under either the schedular or extraschedular standards.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided that the Veteran's claims for service connection related to bilateral leg condition, bilateral foot condition, nerve damage (non-specific), and lumbar strain should be remanded due to missing National Guard service treatment records.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected conditions did not result in his inability to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation prior to June 19, 2019. The Board denied an earlier effective date for the TDIU.
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.