The Veteran's claim for service connection for chloracne was denied as there is no current diagnosis of the condition.,Service connection and a compensable rating were also denied for bilateral hearing loss.
The deciding factor: There is no current diagnosis of chloracne, and the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran has been exposed to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claim for hypertension and erectile dysfunction was remanded due to insufficient medical opinion regarding their relationship with coronary artery disease.
- Claimed conditions
- chloracne, hypertension, erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 9, 2018
- Citation
- 18141016
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 18141016.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
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: 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.
- 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.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: 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. How we handle your email.
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.