Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
GrantedPACT Act

Service connection for colorectal cancer is granted.,Service connection for skin disability (claimed as seborrheic dermatitis) on a secondary basis to service-connected diabetes is granted.,Service connection for erectile dysfunction (claimed as vision problems) on a secondary basis to service-connected diabetes is granted. The Board acknowledges that the evidence of record is at least in relative equipoise, and therefore grants this claim.,The Veteran's eye disability is remanded due to insufficient development of records related to his active duty service.,The Veteran's stomach disability is remanded due to insufficient development of records related to his National Guard service.

The deciding factor: The evidence supports the conclusion that the Veteran's colorectal cancer was caused by his in-service exposure to Agent Orange.,Given the current diagnosis and the VA positive opinions, the Board finds that the evidence supports a connection between the Veteran's skin disability and military service due to his conceded exposure to Agent Orange.,Given the current diagnosis and the VA positive opinions, the Board finds that the evidence supports a connection between the Veteran's erectile dysfunction and his service-connected diabetes.,The remand directives requested verification of all dates of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA), as well as line of duty (LOD) determinations. The examination did not consider specific records related to the Veteran's eye disability, such as a 1986 National Guard service treatment record.,The remand directives requested verification of all dates of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty training (INACDUTRA), as well as line of duty (LOD) determinations. The examination did not consider specific records related to the Veteran's stomach disability, such as a 1966 service treatment record.

Claimed conditions
colorectal cancer, skin disability (seborrheic dermatitis), erectile dysfunction
How they argued it
Not specified
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
December 21, 2023
Citation
23067206

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 23067206.

What this means for you

A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.

What you can do next

Related decisions

Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.

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.