The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claim for further development and examination due to uncertainty regarding his claimed conditions, exposure history, and service connection theory.
The deciding factor: The decision is based on insufficient evidence or information to make a determination about the nature of the Veteran's current condition and its relationship to service.
- Claimed conditions
- essential thrombocytopenia, myeloproliferative neoplasm
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 10, 2019
- Citation
- 19136729
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,886 · Granted: 24% (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 19136729.
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.
- Granted
The Board has granted an earlier effective date of December 7, 2018 for the award of service connection for myeloproliferative neoplasm due to exposure to Agent Orange during active service.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for essential thrombocytopenia, finding that his condition was not related to his military service.
- Denied
The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for essential thrombocytopenia, finding that there is no evidence to support a nexus between the condition and active duty.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's death was attributed to myeloproliferative neoplasm, a type of cancer. The appellant asserts that the cause of death is related to ionizing radiation exposure during his service as a dental superintendent. However, the VA dose assessment only covered part of his service period and needs to be updated.
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.