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

The Veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus is granted, as the Board finds that her tinnitus had its onset during active duty and is presumed related to noise exposure in service.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied, as she does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss as defined by VA regulations.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for breast cancer is remanded, as the Board finds that an adequate medical opinion regarding the etiology of her condition has not been provided.,The Veteran's claim for service connection for a bilateral foot disability (pes planus) is remanded, as the Board finds that an adequate medical opinion regarding the etiology of her condition has not been provided.

The deciding factor: Service connection may be granted if the Veteran can show a current disability, in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Tinnitus is presumed related to noise exposure in service.,Bilateral hearing loss requires audiometric testing results meeting specific criteria. The Veteran's test results do not meet these criteria, thus she does not have a current disability of bilateral hearing loss for VA purposes.,The Board finds the medical opinions inadequate as they rely solely on the absence of treatment records in service without considering other factors such as the Veteran's contentions and her statements regarding hazardous environmental conditions and exposures in service.,The Board finds the medical opinions inadequate as they rely solely on the absence of treatment records in service without considering other factors such as the Veteran's contentions and her statements regarding wearing boots and frequent high impact activity in service.

Claimed conditions
tinnitus, bilateral hearing loss, breast cancer, bilateral foot disability (pes planus)
How they argued it
Presumptive (no nexus needed)
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
April 16, 2024
Citation
A24018891

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 A24018891.

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.