Veterans’ RightsAn independent resource for veterans
← All decisions
Remanded (sent back)

The Board has denied service connection for pancreatitis and prostate cancer, both for accrued benefits purposes. The Veteran's pancreatitis was not shown as chronic in service or within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease. Service connection on a direct basis may still be considered.,The Board has also denied service connection for prostate cancer, both for accrued benefits purposes. The Veteran's prostate cancer was not shown as chronic in service or within the applicable presumptive period; continuity of symptomatology is not established; and the disability is not otherwise etiologically related to an in-service injury or disease. Service connection on a direct basis may still be considered.,The Board has remanded for further development regarding a compensable rating for bladder cancer residuals, both for accrued benefits purposes. The Veteran reported frequent night wakings for urination, and the appellant testified to such at the hearing.

The deciding factor: Service connection is not warranted on any basis as there was no evidence of chronic pancreatitis or prostate cancer in service or within the applicable presumptive period, nor did continuity of symptomatology establish a relationship with service. The Veteran's exposure time to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune was well less than a year and insufficient to cause either condition.,Service connection is not warranted on any basis as there was no evidence of chronic prostate cancer in service or within the applicable presumptive period, nor did continuity of symptomatology establish a relationship with service. The Veteran's exposure time to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune was well less than a year and insufficient to cause either condition.,The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge pathology. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the appellant in this case because the record does not show that she has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination.

Claimed conditions
pancreatitis, prostate cancer
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
January 24, 2024
Citation
24003641

Veterans Law Judge

Christopher Seppanen

Decisions by this judge: 964 · Granted: 37% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted decisions on this site)

Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.

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 24003641.

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.

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.