The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate analysis of the appellant's testimony regarding the Veteran’s malaria symptoms and their impact on his death. The VA examiner is requested to provide a supplemental opinion considering new evidence submitted by the appellant's representative.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the appellant's testimony was not adequately addressed in its decision, leading to remand for further consideration of this evidence.
- Claimed conditions
- Malaria, Cardiac asystole, Coronary insufficiency, Coronary arteriosclerosis, Chronic obstructive lung disease
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 7, 2020
- Citation
- 20077286
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 20077286.
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.
- Granted
The Veteran is granted higher levels of SMC and aid and attendance special monthly compensation effective May 3, 2024, due to his service-connected conditions that require regular aid and assistance.
- Denied
The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for malaria, tinnitus, and bilateral foot disability due to a lack of current disabilities and insufficient evidence linking these conditions to service.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected conditions do not render him unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during service, but not in proximity to the Korean DMZ. However, the Veteran's statements and other evidence support his claim of exposure near the DMZ. The Board will now seek a medical opinion regarding whether any of his heart conditions are related to this exposure.
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.