Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)

The Veteran's claim for service connection for hypertension was denied because the evidence did not show a current disability or in-service incurrence. The Veteran appealed, but new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen this claim.,Service connection for sleep apnea is denied as there is no link between the condition and service.,The Veteran's cyst disability is rated at 30 percent prior to December 15, 2017. From that date, a higher rating of 50 percent is granted but not higher.,An earlier effective date for headaches prior to December 1, 2005 and an earlier effective date for the increased rating of cyst disability prior to June 5, 2014 are denied.,An earlier effective date for TDIU prior to March 22, 2017 is also denied.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability is remanded and will be reconsidered.

The deciding factor: No new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the hypertension claim. The STRs did not show a current disability or in-service incurrence of hypertension.,There is no link between the Veteran's sleep apnea and service, as his STRs are negative for complaints or treatment related to this condition.,The cyst disability was rated at 30 percent prior to December 15, 2017. From that date, a higher rating of 50 percent is granted but not higher due to the absence of additional characteristics of disfigurement.,There is no evidence showing the Veteran filed claims for headaches or cyst disability before the specified dates, and there is no TDIU claim prior to March 22, 2017.,The evidence does not show a valid claim for TDIU prior to March 22, 2017. The effective date cannot be earlier than this date.,There is insufficient evidence to establish service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability.

Claimed conditions
hypertension, sleep apnea, cyst disability, headaches
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
19128384

Veterans Law Judge

John J. Crowley

Decisions by this judge: 3,319 · Granted: 25% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)

Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.

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 19128384.

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.

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.