The Board has remanded the claims for service connection due to the appellant's exposure to toxins at Fort McClellan, Alabama during her period of ACDUTRA. The VA will provide appropriate examinations and determine if there is a relationship between these conditions and the in-service exposures.
The deciding factor: The appellant's claim involves new evidence that has reopened her service connection claims, necessitating further examination to establish a link between her current conditions and her in-service exposure at Fort McClellan.
- Claimed conditions
- muscle cramp disorder, back disorder, eye disorder, chronic fatigue syndrome, obstructive sleep apnea, cardiovascular disorder, hypertension, GERD, liver disorder, gynecological disorder, skin disorder, diabetes mellitus type II, adrenal gland tumors, parathyroid disorder
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 16, 2022
- Citation
- 22052883
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 22052883.
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 Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and providing proper notice regarding secondary service connection.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- 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.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for obstructive sleep apnea, finding that there is no competent evidence to support a finding that his current condition began in or as a result of service.
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.