The Board has determined that the VA examiner's opinion is inadequate and requires further evaluation to determine if the Veteran's skin conditions are related to his herbicide exposure.
The deciding factor: The March 2020 VA examiner provided a negative opinion based solely on the fact that the diagnosed conditions were not presumptive conditions for herbicide exposure, without considering other relevant medical opinions or providing a rationale for their conclusion.
- Claimed conditions
- sebaceous cysts, prurigo nodules
- How they argued it
- Aggravation of a pre-existing condition
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 17, 2021
- Citation
- 21075099
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 21075099.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The appeal is remanded to obtain an adequate medical opinion regarding the nature and etiology of the Veteran's skin disabilities, including chloracne.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for skin disorders, including basal and squamous cell carcinomas, sebaceous cysts, and pityriasis rosea, as there is no evidence linking these conditions to the Veteran's military service or herbicide exposure.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for sebaceous cysts, finding no evidence of a relationship to service or any other compensable period.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability was reopened due to the submission of new evidence. The case is remanded for additional development, including obtaining non-VA treatment records and an adequate VA medical opinion regarding the etiology of his skin disabilities.
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.