The Board denied the Veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date for service connection of eczema dermatitis, finding that the Substantive Appeal was not timely filed.
The deciding factor: The Substantive Appeal regarding the effective date issue was postmarked and received more than 60 days after the SOC and more than one year following the notice letter informing the Veteran of the action appealed.
- Claimed conditions
- eczema dermatitis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 7, 2019
- Citation
- 19144286
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,084 · Granted: 20% (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 19144286.
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 Board has determined that the Veteran's pre-existing eczema was aggravated by service, and therefore grants service connection for atopic dermatitis and eczema dermatitis.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's service connection claim for eczema dermatitis and cholinergic urticaria is being remanded due to the need for TERA development related to his Gulf War exposure.
- Denied
The Veteran's skin condition, characterized as eczema dermatitis and lichen simplex, did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic codes. The Board denied his claim for an initial compensable rating.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for diabetes mellitus type II and a skin disability (claimed as chloracne) due to herbicide exposure, finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides in Thailand during his active duty. The decision is based on presumptive service connection.
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.