The Board denied clothing allowances for bilateral knee braces and trixaicin/capsaicin, clotrimazole, and thera-gesic creams in the 2015 calendar year due to lack of evidence showing that these items cause wear and tear on the Veteran's clothing.
The deciding factor: The VA certifying official found that the knee braces do not tend to wear and tear the Veteran’s clothing, and the trixaicin/capsaicin, clotrimazole, and thera-gesic creams are not prescribed for use in conjunction with a service-connected skin disability.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral knee braces, tinea pedis (skin disability), orthopedic disabilities
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 18, 2018
- Citation
- 18158915
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 18158915.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran's SMC P-2 award is restored effective January 31, 2020. The rating decision proposing a reduction in his SMC was found to have made CUE and thus the restoration of his SMC P-2 award is granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's clothing allowance claim for 2020 is remanded due to missing relevant documents from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) including prior clothing allowance decisions, notice of disagreements, substantive appeals, and medical assessments conducted by VHA evaluators. The AOJ needs to reconstruct the record.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to his failure to provide updated employment information, specifically by submitting a VA Form 21-8940. The evidence showed that he had service-connected disabilities but did not meet the criteria for TDIU as defined in the regulations.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that there are missing relevant documents from the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) and remanded for the AOJ to reconstruct the record and associate all pertinent records with the electronic claims file.
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.