The Veteran's cause of death is related to his in-service exposure to asbestos and environmental exposures in Southwest Asia, but the Board has not found service connection for these conditions due to lack of evidence. The case is remanded for further development regarding herbicide exposure.
The deciding factor: Further research is needed to verify the Veteran’s alleged herbicide exposure and environmental exposures in Southwest Asia.
- Claimed conditions
- Acute respiratory failure, Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Diabetes mellitus, Peripheral vascular disease
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- February 18, 2020
- Citation
- 20012826
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 20012826.
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 claim of service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking his myocardial infarction and COPD to his military service.
- Denied
The Board has denied service connection for bladder cancer, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) as there is no evidence to support a link between these conditions and the Veteran's military service.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of ambulance travel expenses incurred on June 17, 2025 due to an emergency heart attack. The ambulance service was provided by a volunteer organization and later intercepted by a higher-tier EMT company.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for a higher level of SMC was denied as the Board found that he is already in receipt of SMC at the (l) rate based on need for regular aid and attendance due to service-connected disabilities, including coronary artery disease with congestive heart failure. A second award of SMC at the (l) rate based on need for regular aid and attendance was not warranted.
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.