The Veteran's claim is being remanded due to missing records and unclear specific contentions regarding the incorrect payments made. The AOJ needs to provide detailed explanations of compensation awards, clarify terms like 'gross rate replacement', and request further information from the Veteran.
The deciding factor: The decision is remanded because there are missing records and the Veteran's specific contentions about incorrect payments need clarification.
- Claimed conditions
- Burn scars
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 13, 2019
- Citation
- 19145998
Veterans Law Judge
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 19145998.
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 Veteran's topical medications stained and damaged his clothing, warranting a clothing allowance for calendar year 2015.,His left knee brace caused wear and tear on his clothing, qualifying him for a clothing allowance for calendar year 2015.,Elbow crutches used by the Veteran due to his left knee disability also caused damage to his clothing, entitling him to a clothing allowance for calendar year 2015.,The right knee brace and back brace were not service-connected disabilities at the time of the decision, thus denying entitlement to a clothing allowance for these items in 2015.,Left ankle brace did not cause damage to his clothing as determined by VA, therefore denial of a clothing allowance for this item in 2015.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim to reinstate a 10 percent rating for burn scars under 38 C.F.R. § 3.324, as the discontinuation of this rating was proper due to the assignment of a compensable rating for tinnitus.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for burn scars, finding that there is no current disability and the evidence does not support a finding of causation to service.
- Granted
The Veteran's service-connected burn scars, cervical spine injury, and left upper extremity radiculopathy prevent him from obtaining substantially gainful employment. The Board has determined that the criteria for TDIU have been met.
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.