The Board has granted service connection for melanoma of the back, neck, and arms as a result of Agent Orange exposure during active duty service.
The deciding factor: The medical evidence supports a finding that the Veteran's current melanoma is likely due to his in-service exposure to military herbicides, including Agent Orange.
- Claimed conditions
- melanoma of the back, melanoma of the neck, melanoma of the arms
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 21, 2023
- Citation
- 23067275
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 23067275.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board allowed the benefit or issue identified in this decision. Review the original order: other issues in the same appeal may have a different outcome, and this decision does not predict another claim.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for actinic keratosis and melanoma of the neck, finding that these conditions are at least as likely as not related to service due to prolonged sun exposure during active duty.
- Denied
The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for degenerative changes of the right foot and melanoma of the back, finding no evidence to support a link between these conditions and his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration, including obtaining a dose estimate for the veteran's exposure to ionizing radiation during service. The AOJ must also provide proper notice of the type of evidence needed to establish an effective date or disability rating if service connection is granted.
- 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.