The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral neuropathy/radiculopathy is related to his presumed exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam, and may be aggravated by service-connected diabetes. However, the VA examination was inadequate as it did not address these theories of entitlement or discuss the Veteran’s herniated disc and degenerative spine conditions. Therefore, another VA examination is needed.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the initial VA examination was insufficient to determine the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral neuropathy/radiculopathy due to its lack of detail regarding the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam and his herniated disc and degenerative spine conditions.
- Claimed conditions
- peripheral neuropathy, neuropathy
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- October 25, 2018
- Citation
- 18144763
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 18144763.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for SMC based on loss of use of both lower extremities is being remanded due to a failure to obtain relevant private medical records. The AOJ will consider these records when readjudicating the claim.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the eligibility determination for the PCAFC was inadequate due to an insufficient medical opinion, and thus remanded for further review.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's spouse is seeking to be substituted as the appellant for claims of service connection filed by the Veteran in August 2017. The AOJ has not yet determined whether she meets the requirements to substitute, and this issue must be remanded.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's TDIU claim is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence, including SSA disability records. The AOJ will consider the recent grants of service connection in conjunction with the TDIU application.
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.