The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability, including chloracne, due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent. The Board found that there is no medical evidence linking the current skin disability to active service or any incident of service.
The deciding factor: The addendum opinions provided by VA clinicians were highly probative and did not support a nexus between the Veteran's diagnosed PFB and folliculitis and his active service, including as due to in-service exposure to an herbicide agent.
- Claimed conditions
- skin disability, chloracne
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 15, 2024
- Citation
- 24033049
Veterans Law Judge
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 24033049.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's skin disability is remanded for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his condition, including whether it is related to service or toxic exposure risk activities. The Veteran also needs to provide authorization forms for private treatment records.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claims for tinnitus and an acquired psychiatric disability were dismissed due to improper concurrent elections.,The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of back, sciatic nerve, right shoulder, foot, skin, left-hand, or right-hand disabilities. The claim for headaches was also denied.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's spouse is seeking to be substituted as the appellant for claims of service connection filed by the Veteran in August 2017. The AOJ has not yet determined whether she meets the requirements to substitute, and this issue must be remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate opinions regarding the Veteran's skin disability and its relation to his service-connected liver transplant.
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.