The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate VA opinions and a need for an adequate VA examination from an Oncologist or Urologist. The issues are whether the Veteran's testicular cancer is linked to in-service exposure to herbicide agents or prostate cancer.
The deciding factor: The decision was not made based on service connection theory, as it did not address direct service connection or secondary service connection.
- Claimed conditions
- testicular cancer
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- April 5, 2023
- Citation
- 23020967
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 23020967.
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: Granted
The Board has granted service connection for testicular cancer effective July 18, 2022. The decision is based on the Veteran's supplemental claim received on that date.
- Whole decision: Partly granted
The Veteran's service connection for left testicular cancer is granted due to exposure to burn pits during his service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. Service connection for testicular cancer prior to August 10, 2022, on a direct basis is also granted.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection have been remanded due to the submission of new and relevant evidence. The issues include testicular cancer, DMII, and diabetic nephropathy.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient development of evidence regarding the Veteran's exposure to ionizing radiation and its relation to his testicular cancer. The claim will be referred for further consideration by the Under Secretary for Benefits.
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.