The Board denied increased ratings for a heart disability and an acquired psychiatric disorder, as well as earlier effective dates for TDIU and DEA eligibility. The claim for service connection for erectile dysfunction was remanded.
The deciding factor: The evidence did not support the criteria for higher ratings or earlier effective dates due to insufficient METs levels and lack of occupational and social impairment in most areas.
- Claimed conditions
- Acquired psychiatric disorder, Atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease status post coronary artery bypass graft (CABG), Erectile dysfunction
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- November 19, 2025
- Citation
- A25100593
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 1,185 · Granted: 28% (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 A25100593.
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.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disability and an increased rating for his acquired psychiatric disorder. The Board found that there was no evidence linking the current disabilities to military service.
- Granted
The Board has granted the Veteran's claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of prostate cancer due to VA's failure to notify him of his April 17, 2008, elevated PSA test results and its failure to timely diagnose and properly treat his disease.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case for a determination on whether injuries sustained in a November 2001 incident were in the line of duty. The claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is also remanded due to its interdependence with the line of duty issue.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for further development due to insufficient evidence and need for additional examinations.
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.