The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's exposure to jet fuel and its relation to his urinary bladder cancer. The VA will need to develop this issue further by obtaining the Veteran's service personnel records, confirming any exposure to jet fuels, and scheduling an examination to determine if there is a link between the Veteran's condition and his military service.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the evidence was insufficient to establish a connection between the Veteran's urinary bladder cancer and his alleged exposure to jet fuel during service.
- Claimed conditions
- Urinary Bladder Cancer
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 11, 2019
- Citation
- A19000307
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claims for further development, including obtaining a VA examination and opinion to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's obstructive sleep apnea and urinary bladder cancer, as well as scheduling the Veteran for VA examinations to assess the current severity of his service-connected disabilities.
- Denied
The veteran's urinary bladder cancer was not shown during service or within one year of discharge, and there is no evidence of radiation exposure. Therefore, the claim for service connection is denied.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for sarcoidosis as new and relevant evidence has been received since the previous denial.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for tinnitus to correct a duty to assist error, as the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptoms were not adequately considered in the previous decision.
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.