The appeal for earlier effective dates for diabetes mellitus type 2 with erectile dysfunction, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left and right lower extremities, diabetic nephropathy with hypertension, macular edema and retinal scarring due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, status post panretinal photocoagulation, both eyes, and SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is dismissed.,The appeal for earlier effective dates for diabetes mellitus type 2 with erectile dysfunction, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, diabetic nephropathy with hypertension, macular edema and retinal scarring due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, status post panretinal photocoagulation, both eyes, and SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is dismissed.,The appeal for earlier effective dates for diabetes mellitus type 2 with erectile dysfunction, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, diabetic nephropathy with hypertension, macular edema and retinal scarring due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, status post panretinal photocoagulation, both eyes, and SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is dismissed.,The appeal for earlier effective dates for diabetes mellitus type 2 with erectile dysfunction, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, macular edema and retinal scarring due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, status post panretinal photocoagulation, both eyes, and SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is dismissed.,The appeal for earlier effective dates for diabetes mellitus type 2 with erectile dysfunction, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the left lower extremity, diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the right lower extremity, macular edema and retinal scarring due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, status post panretinal photocoagulation, both eyes, and SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is dismissed.
The deciding factor: The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided.
- Claimed conditions
- diabetes mellitus type 2 with erectile dysfunction, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, left lower extremity, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, right lower extremity, diabetic nephropathy with hypertension, macular edema and retinal scarring due to proliferative diabetic retinopathy, status post panretinal photocoagulation, both eyes
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 17, 2024
- Citation
- A24026286
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 A24026286.
What this means for you
A dismissal means the Board did not decide the issue on its merits — usually because it was withdrawn or had become moot. It says more about procedure than about whether a claim like this can win.
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 decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error, and will need additional medical opinions regarding whether the Veteran's diabetic peripheral neuropathy was aggravated during his period of active duty training in August 2016.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's requests for earlier effective dates for service connection of diabetes, diabetic peripheral neuropathy in both lower extremities, and secondary to exposure. The earliest possible effective date is August 10, 2022.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for atrial fibrillation, diabetes mellitus type II, and the various types of diabetic peripheral neuropathy as well as Parkinsonism due to a lack of credible in-service exposure to herbicide agents or other toxins. The Veteran's assertions were found noncredible.
- Dismissed
The appeal was dismissed due to the Veteran's request for higher-level review of effective dates being improperly denied by VA.
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.