The Veteran was granted service connection for dry eyes, but denied service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy. The appeal regarding TDIU is also denied.,Service connection for benign prostatic hypertrophy was denied as there was no evidence of a disease listed under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) and the Board found that it did not have its onset during service or due to herbicide exposure.
The deciding factor: The VA medical opinions indicated that the Veteran's benign prostatic hypertrophy was not related to his in-service herbicide exposure, as there were no symptoms of BPH during service and current medical literature does not support a link between herbicide exposure and BPH development.,There is no evidence showing that the Veteran had any disability due to service-connected conditions that prevented him from securing or following substantially gainful employment.
- Claimed conditions
- dry eyes, benign prostatic hypertrophy
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 20, 2023
- Citation
- 23017382
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 23017382.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
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 Board has found that remand is needed for the Veteran's claims due to duty to assist errors, including clarification of periods of service and obtaining relevant records. The Veteran will be afforded new medical examinations for each claimed disability.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's dry eyes are related to service. The claim will be reviewed again with additional evidence.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current bilateral eye disability is related to service exposure to burn pits. The AOJ should obtain such an opinion.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's service connection claims for various conditions, including adjustment disorder, benign skin lesions, actinic keratosis, poikiloderma, porokeratosis, Parkinson's disease, benign prostatic hypertrophy, hypertension, increased urinary frequency, diverticulosis, duodenal ulcer, and bilateral cataracts are all granted due to exposure to herbicide agents, mustard gas, and ionizing radiation during 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.