The Veteran's initial claim for a 10 percent disability rating for vitiligo was granted effective October 9, 2019. The Board found that the preponderance of evidence supported a 10 percent rating from March 21, 2012, when service connection was established.
The deciding factor: The effective date of the award of service connection for vitiligo was March 21, 2012, and the Veteran's initial application for benefits was signed on that same day. The Board concluded that a retroactive rating to his date of claim (March 16, 2012) would not be appropriate as it did not align with the effective date of service connection.
- Claimed conditions
- vitiligo
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- 10%
- Decision date
- September 9, 2020
- Citation
- 20059184
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 20059184.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the cases of service connection for vitiligo and obstructive sleep apnea due to inadequate VA examinations. The Veteran will need new VA examinations to address these issues.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for vitiligo, finding that the Veteran's current condition started during his active duty service and had continuity to the present. The decision is based on the Veteran's lay statements and VA treatment records.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the issues of service connection for various cancers and related conditions due to errors in obtaining relevant medical records and inadequate opinions regarding their etiology.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error, requiring an additional medical opinion on the etiology of the Veteran's vitiligo.
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.