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

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss has been reopened, but the evidence does not establish a link between his current hearing loss and in-service noise exposure. Service connection is therefore denied.,Service connection was denied for hypothyroidism as there is no evidence of its onset during service or within one year thereafter. The Veteran's claim for residuals of squamous cell carcinoma has also been denied due to lack of a diagnosis in service or soon after discharge.,The Veteran's Peyronie’s disease claim remains pending, with the Board finding that current evidence does not support a diagnosis in service or shortly after separation from active duty.,Service connection was denied for allergic rhinitis as there is no evidence of obstruction meeting the criteria set forth in VA's rating schedule. The Veteran's request for an increased disability rating remains pending.

The deciding factor: The preponderance of the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran’s current bilateral hearing loss is related to his military service, as there was no documented hearing loss during service and no continuity of symptoms post-service.,There is insufficient evidence to establish that hypothyroidism or squamous cell carcinoma began in service. The Veteran's service records do not indicate any diagnosis of these conditions within the applicable presumptive period.,The Board found conflicting medical records regarding whether the Veteran has Peyronie’s disease, but concluded that even if he does have it, there is no evidence linking its onset to his military service.,There was insufficient evidence to meet the criteria for a compensable disability rating under DC 6522 for allergic rhinitis.

Claimed conditions
Allergic Rhinitis, Bilateral Hearing Loss, Hypothyroidism, Migraine Headaches, Peyronie’s Disease, Residuals of Squamous Cell Carcinoma
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
December 3, 2019
Citation
19190564

Veterans Law Judge

H.M. WALKER

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 19190564.

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.