The Board has determined that further development is necessary to address the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin condition, including consideration of exposure to ionizing radiation. The case will be remanded for additional development and readjudication.
The deciding factor: Further development is required due to the Veteran's contention of exposure to ionizing radiation during his military service, which may impact the determination of service connection.
- Claimed conditions
- skin rash, skin cancer
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 5, 2018
- Citation
- 1800510
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 1800510.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for skin cancer and a disorder manifested by urinary frequency, finding no evidence of current disability or sufficient link to the Veteran's active service.
- Partly granted
The appeal for service connection for skin cancer was dismissed due to untimeliness, while the claim for squamous cell carcinoma was granted.
- Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for right and left ankle disabilities, a skin rash, and denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss, shortness of breath, PTSD, OSA, cervical spine disability, lumbar spine disability, knee disabilities, CPS, and earlier effective dates.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for service connection due to pre-decisional duty to assist errors, including inadequate VA examinations and failure to obtain etiological opinions.
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.