The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's blood in urine disorder, specifically his reported history of symptoms dating back to approximately 1968. The VA examiner is requested to provide an opinion on whether it is at least as likely as not that the condition is related to service and exposure to herbicide agents.
The deciding factor: The Board found the previous addendum opinion inadequate due to its failure to address the Veteran's reported history of blood in his urine dating back to approximately 1968.
- Claimed conditions
- blood in urine (hematuria)
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- May 17, 2021
- Citation
- 21029978
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 21029978.
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
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: Granted
Service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is granted. The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is dismissed.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to conflicting opinions regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and skin disabilities related to herbicide exposure.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's tinnitus is presumed to have been incurred in service due to noise exposure during his time in Vietnam.
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.