The Board remands the claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error in not affording the Veteran an opportunity for an in-person examination and inadequate opinions regarding direct, secondary, and TERA theories of entitlement.
The deciding factor: The Board found that the AOJ erred in not affording the Veteran an opportunity for an in-person VA examination and that the October 2023 VA examiner's opinion was inadequate due to reliance on an absence of records and failure to discuss relevant service treatment records.
- Claimed conditions
- erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 7, 2025
- Citation
- A25021421
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 998 · Granted: 40% (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 A25021421.
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.
- 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 Board has found that the Veteran meets the basic medical eligibility criteria for PCAFC benefits due to his need for personal care services based on symptoms or residuals of neurological or other impairment or injury. However, further clinical evaluation is needed to determine if participation in the program is in the Veteran's best interest.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for prostate cancer, coronary artery disease (CAD), diabetes mellitus type II (DM II), hypertension, and erectile dysfunction as secondary to service-connected DM II. The Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange during active service is presumed.
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.