The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining missing records and affording the Veteran a VA examination to determine the etiology of his heart disorder and neurocardiogenic syncope.
The deciding factor: The decision is mixed as some issues were granted while others were not due to the need for additional evidence and clarification from the examiner's opinions.
- Claimed conditions
- heart disorder, atriial fibrillation, neurocardiogenic syncope
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 27, 2016
- Citation
- 1648121
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 1648121.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
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 remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection due to errors in obtaining relevant medical records and authorization for private treatment providers. The issues include heart disorder, OSA, sinusitis, lumbar spine disorder, and right knee disorder all related to Agent Orange exposure.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the issues of service connection for atrial fibrillation, benign prostatic hypertrophy with outflow obstruction, congestive heart failure, and hypertension due to inadequate VA opinions. The Veteran's exposure during service is conceded to include asbestos and gas chamber exposures.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a heart disorder, to include ischemic heart disease (IHD), finding that there was not sufficient evidence to establish a link between his current condition and his military service. The Board noted that the Veteran did not have active military service from January 9, 1962, to July 31, 1980, and that he was not exposed to herbicide agents during his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient consideration of secondary service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) related to the Veteran's service-connected foot disability and depression.
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.