The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents at Fort Gordon, which is necessary for determining service connection for his cause of death.
The deciding factor: The expert opinion was inadequate as it did not address the specific information provided by the Appellant and failed to provide a discussion on the half-life of herbicide agents.
- Claimed conditions
- metastatic multiple myeloma
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 27, 2023
- Citation
- 23018832
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 23018832.
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 insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's exposure to herbicide agents during his service at Fort Gordon, which is necessary for determining whether he was exposed to herbicide agents and thus potentially eligible for service connection for cause of death.
- Denied
The Veteran died of metastatic multiple myeloma. The Board found no service connection for the cause of death as it was not caused by or substantially contributed to by a disability incurred in or aggravated by his active duty service.
- 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.