The Veteran's claims for earlier effective dates for dependency benefits were denied as the earliest date entitlement arose was March 17, 2010 for his spouse and minor children K. and A., and June 18, 2010 for his minor child B.
The deciding factor: The earliest date entitlement arose for an additional allowance for the Veteran's dependent spouse and minor children K. and A. was March 17, 2010, which is when he first had a combined schedular rating of 30 percent or greater. For his minor child B., it was June 18, 2010, which is the date of his birth.
- Claimed conditions
- neck scar, right and left upper extremity radiculopathy
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 6, 2019
- Citation
- A19001147
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 A19001147.
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 combined disability rating was 100% from February 6, 2006. The Veteran died in February 2020 and had been receiving a total disability rating for at least 10 years immediately preceding his death. Therefore, DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 are granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to conflicting evidence regarding the severity of the Veteran's neck scar, and a new examination is needed.
- Denied
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for various radiculopathy conditions and a neck scar have been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support higher ratings based on the current symptoms.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's application for PCAFC eligibility was denied due to the CEAT finding that he did not require personal care services based on his service-connected conditions. The Board has ordered remand to obtain an adequate medical opinion from the CEAT regarding the Veteran's need for personal care and supervision.
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.