The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the relationship between sensory peripheral neuropathy and herbicide agent exposure in Vietnam.
The deciding factor: Insufficient medical opinion regarding the relationship between sensory peripheral neuropathy and herbicide agent exposure in Vietnam.
- Claimed conditions
- sensory peripheral neuropathy
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- September 7, 2018
- Citation
- 18132810
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 18132810.
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 Veteran's claim for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus was denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating prior to May 25, 2004, or from that date.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board found that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, myopathy, and sensory peripheral neuropathy were not incurred or aggravated by his military service, including as secondary to Agent Orange exposure. The claims are therefore denied.
- Whole decision: Denied
The veteran's claims for bilateral hallux valgus, residuals of a back injury, sensory peripheral neuropathy, and nervous twitches were denied as new and material evidence was not received. The claim for PTSD resulted in a full grant of benefits.
- Whole decision: Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
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.