The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and effective dates have been denied. The initial compensable rating for ingrown toenail, right great toe is denied. The heart disability claim has not met the criteria for a higher than 10 percent rating. Erectile dysfunction does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating. Effective dates prior to May 23, 2011 are not granted for service connection of hypertension, allergic conjunctivitis, erectile dysfunction, ingrown toenail right great toe, and heart disability.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not show that any of the conditions warranted a higher than non-compensable rating. The Veteran's claims were received within one year of his separation from active duty service, thus the earliest effective date is May 23, 2011.
- Claimed conditions
- ingrown toenail, right great toe, valvular heart disease (mitral valve prolapse and chest pain), erectile dysfunction, hypertension, allergic conjunctivitis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 13, 2018
- Citation
- 18134807
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 18134807.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
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 claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- 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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including VA examinations.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to conflicting opinions regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and skin disabilities related to herbicide exposure.
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.