The appeal to restore the 50 percent rating for a scar of the middle and lower posterior neck with disfigurement was granted, while the claim for an increased rating for a painful scar of the lower posterior neck with failed skin graft and the claim for a higher rating for CAD were denied. The claim for CAD was remanded.
The deciding factor: The decision was based on the evidence showing that the Veteran has at most two painful scars, which are properly contemplated by the assigned 10 percent rating under DC 7804, and the improper reduction of the scar rating from 50 to 30 percent due to insufficient evidence of improvement.
- Claimed conditions
- Painful scar of the lower posterior neck with failed skin graft, Scar of the middle and lower posterior neck with disfigurement, Coronary artery disease (CAD)
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- May 15, 2025
- Citation
- A25043773
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 734 · Granted: 31% (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 A25043773.
What this means for you
A partial grant means some issues were granted while others were denied or remanded — common in multi-issue claims. Look at which issues went which way, and how each was argued.
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 current coronary artery disease with acute, subacute, or old myocardial infarction with coronary stent is being remanded for further evaluation due to the lack of a medical nexus between his service-connected hypertension and his heart condition.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for SMC based on aid and attendance from June 1, 2011, to May 24, 2017, finding that his need for regular aid and attendance was not established during this period.
- Denied
The Veteran's service connection claims for coronary artery disease and obstructive sleep apnea have been denied as there is no evidence of a nexus between the conditions and his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found new and relevant evidence for the claims of service connection for coronary artery disease (CAD) and an acquired psychiatric disorder. The AOJ is required to readjudicate these claims, taking into consideration all submitted evidence.
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.