The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development of his claims, including the submission of updated treatment records and a supplemental statement of the case.
The deciding factor: The AOJ has not considered all evidence submitted since the February 2015 supplemental statement of the case, so the claim must be remanded for further action.
- Claimed conditions
- amaurosis fugax, mild esotropia
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- February 14, 2018
- Citation
- 1809409
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 1809409.
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: Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder, finding that there is no evidence linking his current conditions to his military service.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his right eye chronic posttraumatic conjunctivitis is being remanded due to the inadequacy of the July 2016 VA examination. The examiner did not address the relationship between the Veteran's service-connected conjunctivitis and his 2013 episode of temporary vision loss, nor did they provide an opinion on any visual field defect.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's bilateral eye disorders are not related to his military service and denied his claim.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board found that the veteran began smoking prior to his active service, and thus cannot establish service connection for disabilities related to tobacco use. The Board denied the claim as there was no evidence linking the current conditions to his active duty.
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.