The Board remands the claims for service connection for various conditions, including bilateral pes planus, heart condition, back disorder, osteoporosis, and others, as additional development is necessary.
The deciding factor: The August 2025 VA examination reports were found inadequate due to lack of consideration of lay statements and failure to address the natural progression of the disability.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral pes planus, heart condition, to include ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, and sinus bradycardia, back disorder, osteoporosis, right lower extremity sciatic pain, left lower extremity sciatic pain, metabolic disorder (hyperlipidemia), right lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, left lower extremity deep vein thrombosis, benign prostatic hypertrophy with lower urinary symptoms, diabetes mellitus, erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 18, 2025
- Citation
- 25014109
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,135 · Granted: 33% (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 25014109.
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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and providing proper notice regarding secondary service connection.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction was denied as the evidence did not show that he had been diagnosed and manifested to at least a 10 percent disability rating on or prior to May 8, 2001.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, prostate cancer, visual impairment, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction due to lack of exposure to herbicide agents during service. The Veteran's claims were not granted.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection on the merits are being remanded due to new evidence and development needs. The maximum disability rating for tinnitus has already been assigned.
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.