The Veteran's claim for service connection for basilar artery thrombosis is being remanded due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding the etiology of his condition. The claims are also being considered in relation to secondary service connection.
The deciding factor: The Board finds that further development is necessary as there are insufficient medical opinions on record regarding the Veteran's claimed conditions and their relationship to service, particularly with respect to herbicide agent exposure and diabetes mellitus.
- Claimed conditions
- basilar artery thrombosis
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- June 23, 2022
- Citation
- 22036377
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 22036377.
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: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's death was attributed to ischemic pontine stroke and basilar artery thrombosis. The Board has remanded the case for further examination and opinion regarding service connection for these conditions due to Agent Orange exposure or Camp Lejeune contamination.
- Whole decision: Denied
The veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board is requesting additional medical opinion to determine if the veteran's hypertension, which he was treated for since at least March 1991, could be related to his military service and whether it contributed to his fatal basilar artery thrombosis.
- 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.
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.