Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Partly granted

The Veteran's tinnitus is granted as service-connected.,The issues of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder, a lung disorder, prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, and type II diabetes mellitus are remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The Veteran's bilateral hearing loss is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The Veteran's lung disorder is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The Veteran's prostate cancer is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The Veteran's erectile dysfunction is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The Veteran's type II diabetes mellitus is remanded due to insufficient evidence.

The deciding factor: There is in equipoise as to whether the Veteran’s tinnitus had its onset during active duty, and thus service connection for tinnitus is granted under the chronicity provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b).,The issues of entitlement to service connection are remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The issue of entitlement to service connection is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The issue of entitlement to service connection is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The issue of entitlement to service connection is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The issue of entitlement to service connection is remanded due to insufficient evidence.,The issue of entitlement to service connection is remanded due to insufficient evidence.

Claimed conditions
tinnitus, bilateral eye disorder (claimed as secondary to environmental toxins and type II diabetes mellitus), bilateral hearing loss, lung disorder (claimed as secondary to environmental toxins, including gases, herbicide agents, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and other chemicals), prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction (claimed as secondary to prostate cancer and type II diabetes mellitus), type II diabetes mellitus (claimed as secondary to herbicide-agent exposure)
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
June 24, 2019
Citation
19148966

Veterans Law Judge

MICHAEL LANE

Decisions by this judge: 2,272 · Granted: 31% (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 19148966.

What this means for you

A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.

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.