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

The Veteran's service connection claim for bilateral hearing loss is denied as there is no evidence of a current disability and the Board finds that his hearing did not worsen during service.,Service connection for tinea cruris is denied because the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of this condition, and the STRs do not show any treatment or complaints related to it.,The Veteran's service connection claim for bilateral foot tinea pedis is granted as there is evidence of a current disability (diagnosis in 1970) and the Board finds that his condition was incurred during active duty due to exposure to hot and humid environment.,Service connection for bilateral hand tremor is remanded because the VA examiner provided negative opinions without adequate rationale.

The deciding factor: The Veteran's STRs do not show any evidence of a current disability, and his hearing did not worsen during service. The Board finds that there is no nexus between his current hearing loss and active duty.,There is no evidence of tinea cruris in the Veteran's STRs or post-service medical records. The condition was noted only once in 1970, which does not meet the criteria for a current disability as defined by VA regulations.,The April 2024 VA examiner found that the Veteran's bilateral foot tinea pedis is less likely than not caused by TERA and more likely related to exposure to hot and humid environment during his active-duty deployment. The Board finds this opinion sufficient to grant service connection for the condition.,The April 2024 VA examiner provided negative opinions without adequate rationale, which are insufficient to decide the Veteran's claim.

Claimed conditions
Bilateral Hearing Loss, Tinea Cruris, Bilateral Foot Tinea Pedis, Bilateral Hand Tremor
How they argued it
Direct service connection
Exposure basis
None
Rating assigned
None in this decision
Decision date
October 30, 2024
Citation
24032426

Veterans Law Judge

Scott W. Dale

Decisions by this judge: 399 · Granted: 41% (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 24032426.

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.