The Veteran's appeal regarding the timeliness of her VA Form 9 was dismissed as she did not wish to opt-in to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The Board does not have jurisdiction to review this issue.
The deciding factor: The Veteran, through her attorney, indicated at an Informal Conference hearing that she did not want to opt-in to the AMA for the timeliness of her VA Form 9 appeal.
- Claimed conditions
- PTSD
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 15, 2020
- Citation
- A20008729
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation A20008729.
What this means for you
A dismissal means the Board did not decide the issue on its merits — usually because it was withdrawn or had become moot. It says more about procedure than about whether a claim like this can win.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Partly granted
The Board has not made a final determination on the claims of service connection for inguinal hernia, PTSD, joint pain, fibromyalgia, left knee disability, right knee disability, tinnitus, chronic fatigue syndrome, respiratory disability, sleep disorder, IBS, and headaches. The claims are remanded to obtain additional evidence and determine if these conditions are related to service.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's claim of service connection for PTSD was granted with an initial evaluation of 50 percent, effective September 24, 2007. The appeal regarding the heart condition and sleep disorder is denied. The Veteran's hearing loss prior to August 24, 2015, warrants a 20 percent rating.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's appeal for an extension of his education assistance benefits under Chapter 33 was granted, as the evidence showed he was negatively affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and could not complete his program within the original eligibility period.
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.