The Board has found that the Veteran's February 2013 VA examination was not adequate due to inconsistent findings and instructed the RO to request treatment records related to a possible neurophthalmology evaluation. The RO did not comply with this directive, so the claim is being remanded for further development.
The deciding factor: The Board determined that the Veteran should be provided a new VA examination and requested all relevant medical records from January 2017 onwards.
- Claimed conditions
- iritis
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 21, 2020
- Citation
- 20035435
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 20035435.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
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: Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for service connection for various conditions have been dismissed as the Veteran withdrew his claims at a hearing.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for sarcoidosis and iritis due to duty-to-assist errors, inadequate VA examination, and need for additional development regarding in-service environmental exposures.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the eligibility for PCAFC should be reconsidered due to a lack of sufficient reasoning in the previous decision. The case is being remanded to provide a more detailed and thoroughly explained medical opinion regarding the Veteran's need for personal care services, supervision or protection, and regular extensive instruction.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided that the Veteran's tinnitus is service connected. The other claims are remanded for further development.
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.