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

The Veteran's application to reopen his previously denied claim of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is granted. The claim is reopened, and to this extent only, the appeal is granted.,Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 24, 2010, for the grant of service connection of left fifth cranial nerve deficit is denied.,The Veteran's claims for a skin disorder (claimed as skin rash on back and ears) and loss of taste secondary to fifth cranial nerve deficit are denied.,Entitlement to service connection for a dental disorder secondary to fifth cranial nerve damage is denied.,The Veteran’s erectile dysfunction is remanded for further evaluation, including obtaining a VA medical opinion regarding the relationship between his depressive disorder and erectile dysfunction.

The deciding factor: New evidence has been received that raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction.,The earliest effective date allowable under the law is March 24, 2010, as this is when the Veteran filed his claim for left fifth cranial nerve deficit.,There is no evidence of a current skin disorder or loss of taste that would warrant service connection.,There is no evidence of a dental disability secondary to the Veteran's fifth cranial nerve damage.,The Veteran has provided testimony regarding his depressive disorder impacting his ability to get an erection, and a VA medical opinion is needed to determine if this relationship exists.

Claimed conditions
erectile dysfunction, skin disorder (claimed as skin rash on back and ears), loss of taste secondary to fifth cranial nerve deficit, dental disorder secondary to fifth cranial nerve damage
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
April 25, 2019
Citation
19131908

Veterans Law Judge

H.M. WALKER

Decisions by this judge: 2,569 · Granted: 26% (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 19131908.

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.