The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty to assist error, specifically regarding the need for a VA examination to determine if there is functional impairment associated with vitamin deficiency and whether it is related to service.
The deciding factor: The decision was remanded because of an initial duty to assist error that occurred prior to the rating decision on appeal.
- Claimed conditions
- hypovitaminosis, Vitamin D deficiency, low testosterone
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- November 25, 2024
- Citation
- A24077844
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation A24077844.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for residuals of prostate cancer status post transurethral resection is remanded due to the need for additional private treatment records.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Veteran's pituitary gland dysfunction with low testosterone and azoospermia did not result in compensable symptoms, and thus a compensable disability rating is denied.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board has denied service connection for hypogonadism, low testosterone, and Hashimoto's disease due to toxic exposure risk activity. The VA examiners found no link between these conditions and the Veteran's military service.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's claim for travel expenses to the Reno VAMC on May 18, 2022 was granted as he could not have received his primary care at a closer VA facility.
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.