The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral eye disability and tinnitus due to deficiencies in the VA examination, lack of adequate evidence to resolve the claim, and need for further development.
The deciding factor: Further medical opinion is needed to address the etiology of all current bilateral eye disabilities based on full consideration of the Veteran's documented history and assertions.
- Claimed conditions
- corneal dystrophy, macular degeneration, cataracts/pseudophakia, dry eyes
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- September 14, 2016
- Citation
- 1635897
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. Search VA.gov for the original decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1635897.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
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 found that remand is needed for the Veteran's claims due to duty to assist errors, including clarification of periods of service and obtaining relevant records. The Veteran will be afforded new medical examinations for each claimed disability.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's dry eyes are related to service. The claim will be reviewed again with additional evidence.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current bilateral eye disability is related to service exposure to burn pits. The AOJ should obtain such an opinion.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board has denied the claim for service connection for macular degeneration due to a finding of clear and unmistakable error in the AOJ's decision, as no new and relevant evidence was presented or secured with the supplemental claim.
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.