The Veteran's claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction is remanded due to the need for an addendum medical opinion.,An earlier effective date prior to August 18, 2017 for the award of service connection for urinary retention with urinary incontinence and recurrent UTIs associated with degenerative disc and joint disease, thoracolumbar spine is denied as it was received on that date or later.,The Veteran's claim for earlier effective date prior to August 18, 2017 for the grant of eligibility for DEA benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is denied due to lack of permanent and total service-connected disability at the time of the original award.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction requires an addendum medical opinion as the current VA examiner did not address whether the Veteran's erectile dysfunction was related to his service-connected degenerative disc and joint disease.,The effective date prior to August 18, 2017 for the award of service connection for urinary retention with urinary incontinence and recurrent UTIs associated with degenerative disc and joint disease, thoracolumbar spine is denied as it was received on or after that date.,The Veteran's claim for earlier effective date prior to August 18, 2017 for the grant of eligibility for DEA benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 is denied due to lack of permanent and total service-connected disability at the time of the original award.
- Claimed conditions
- Urinary retention with urinary incontinence, Recurrent UTIs associated with degenerative disc and joint disease, thoracolumbar spine, Erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 17, 2023
- Citation
- 23061519
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 23061519.
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 claims for further development due to insufficient evidence and need for additional examinations.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of prostate cancer due to VA's failure to notify him of his April 17, 2008, elevated PSA test results and its failure to timely diagnose and properly treat his disease.
- Granted
The Veteran's September 4, 2024 HLR request was improperly rejected by the AOJ. The Board finds that the request is timely and valid, and reinstates the claims for earlier effective dates and increased ratings.
- Denied
The Veteran's service-connected conditions do not meet the criteria for special monthly compensation based on the need of regular aid and attendance due to his psychiatric symptoms.
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.