The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete records from the Veteran's initial period of inactive duty training (IDT). The AOJ is instructed to make another inquiry for any records related to this period, specifically June 1988 to July 1988, and add a formal finding of unavailability if no additional records are found.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the NPRC search was not properly completed and did not distinguish between the Veteran's initial IDT period and his subsequent service. The AOJ is instructed to make another inquiry for relevant records.
- Claimed conditions
- PTSD, schizophrenia
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- August 13, 2020
- Citation
- 20053929
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 20053929.
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
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.