The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the relationship between the Veteran's skin cancer and his service, including exposure to herbicides. The Veteran is requested to provide medical evidence or participate in a VA examination.
The deciding factor: There are no sufficient medical opinions linking the Veteran's skin cancer to his service, particularly his exposure to herbicides.
- Claimed conditions
- skin cancer (malignant melanoma)
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 29, 2024
- Citation
- 24013468
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 24013468.
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 Veteran's claims for service connection due to incomplete records and potential errors in the decision-making process. The Veteran is requested to provide all relevant service documentation related to his Naval Air Force Reserve duty.
- Denied
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of service connection for skin cancer (malignant melanoma), status post skin graft with scar was denied as there is no indication that he filed a claim to reopen prior to May 8, 2003.
- Granted
The Board of Veterans' Appeals has granted service connection for PTSD and Mood Disorders, both presumed conditions under the PACT Act.
- 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.