The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of VA examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's melanoma of the left shoulder, which is presumed related to his in-service herbicide exposure.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's melanoma was not found to be service-connected based on presumptive exposure to herbicides (Agent Orange) as it does not meet the criteria for such a presumption. However, he can still establish service connection due to direct association with his active service and conceded in-service herbicide exposure.
- Claimed conditions
- melanoma of the left shoulder
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Gulf War
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 15, 2022
- Citation
- A22023135
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 A22023135.
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 Veteran's death was attributed to metastatic malignant melanoma of the brain, which is believed to be related to his service-connected melanoma of the left shoulder. The Board has determined that a VA evaluation would be helpful in resolving these issues.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for melanoma of the left shoulder, basal cell carcinoma of the neck and facial region, mass on the right adrenal gland, and enlarged prostate.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- 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.
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.