The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient examination regarding herbicide exposure and its relation to frequent urination.
The deciding factor: The examiner did not address the presumed herbicide exposure during service in Vietnam, as requested by a previous remand order.
- Claimed conditions
- frequent urination
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 12, 2019
- Citation
- 19145783
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.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection, higher ratings, and earlier effective dates, as well as dismissed his claim for a TDIU.
- Dismissed
The veteran withdrew the appeal for all service connection claims, and the Board has no jurisdiction to review these matters.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for a more thorough medical examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's urinary frequency with incontinence, including whether it is related to service or aggravated by her service-connected depression.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for a disability manifested by frequent urination, finding that the evidence did not support the existence of such a disability during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.
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.