The Board has remanded the claims due to uncertainty regarding whether the Veteran's cancer was a respiratory cancer and if it related to his exposure to herbicides in Thailand.
The deciding factor: The primary site of the cancer at the time of death is unclear, and its relation to herbicide exposure during service needs further investigation.
- Claimed conditions
- metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, squamous cell carcinoma of the base of the tongue with pulmonary metastatic disease
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 4, 2020
- Citation
- 20051705
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 20051705.
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 Veteran's cause of death and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma, as well as squamous cell carcinoma of the base of the tongue with pulmonary metastatic disease, are not service connected. The Board found no evidence of herbicide exposure at Ubon RTAFB in Thailand.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's squamous cell carcinoma of the base of the tongue and metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma are being reviewed for service connection, with consideration given to herbicide exposure in Thailand. The cause of death due to squamous cell oral cancer is also under review.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
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.