Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)

The Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus has been denied as there is no evidence of chronic tinnitus in service or within the applicable presumptive period, and continuity of symptomatology was not established.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II due to exposure to herbicide agents remains pending. The Board will verify his location during this time and determine if he served within twelve nautical miles off the shores of Vietnam.,The Veteran's claims for service connection for erectile dysfunction as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II and cataracts as secondary to diabetes mellitus, type II are both remanded due to the pending determination on his herbicide exposure claim.,No rating has been assigned, and no effective date is provided.

The deciding factor: The Veteran's tinnitus was not shown as chronic in service or within a presumptive period, did not manifest to a compensable degree within a presumptive period, and was not noted in service with attributable continuity of symptomatology.,The Board will verify the location of the USS Towers during the Veteran's active duty service. If he served within twelve nautical miles off the shores of Vietnam, his claim for diabetes mellitus, type II due to exposure to herbicide agents can be presumed based on Procopio v. Wilkie and 38 U.S.C. § 1116A.,The Veteran's erectile dysfunction and cataracts are secondary to his diabetes mellitus, type II. The Board will schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine if these conditions are proximately due or aggravated by diabetes mellitus, type II.,No rating has been assigned, and no effective date is provided.

Claimed conditions
tinnitus, diabetes mellitus, type II, erectile dysfunction, cataracts
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
April 27, 2021
Citation
21024972

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 21024972.

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.

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.