The Board denied the Veteran's motion to revise a previous decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) because there was not clear and unmistakable evidence that he was in need of regular aid and attendance or higher level care prior to September 3, 2006. The motion is dismissed.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the April 19, 2018 decision did not have the correct facts before it regarding whether the Veteran was in need of regular aid and attendance or a higher level of care prior to September 3, 2006. The evidence cited by the Board was not clear and unmistakable.
- Claimed conditions
- not specified
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 29, 2023
- Citation
- 23047508
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 23047508.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Board has granted an effective date of September 1, 2020 for the grant of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) due to the Veteran's death being service-connected. The decision is based on evidence of record at the time of the Veteran's death.
- Granted
The Veteran was found to have been in receipt of a total disability rating for over eight years prior to his death, and the Appellant was legally married to him at the time of his death. The Board granted increased DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1311(a)(2) based on this evidence.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the AOJ did not properly adjudicate all issues before it, including burial benefits, accrued benefits, and special monthly compensation. The case is being returned to the AOJ for further development and action.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's application for benefits under the VA's Caregivers PCAFC program was denied due to a lack of eligibility based on his need for care. The Board has decided to remand this matter for further development and consideration.
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.