The Board granted service connection for arrhythmia and a bilateral eye disability, but denied service connection for lipoma.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's arrhythmia and bilateral eye disability were directly related to his active naval service, while the lipoma was not shown to have resulted from his service. The PACT Act provided presumptive exposure to burn pits during his service in Southwest Asia.
- Claimed conditions
- arrhythmia, bilateral eye disability, lipoma
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating assigned
- 100%
- Decision date
- December 30, 2025
- Citation
- A25111069
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 719 · Granted: 54% (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 A25111069.
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 service connection claims for hypertension, bilateral sensorineural hearing loss, GERD, Barrett's esophagus, and arrhythmia are remanded due to pre-decisional errors in obtaining necessary medical opinions.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current bilateral eye disability is related to service exposure to burn pits. The AOJ should obtain such an opinion.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is denied. The Board has also remanded the issue of service connection for a bilateral eye disability due to an inadequate medical opinion.
- Denied
The Board denied the claims for service connection due to lack of new and relevant 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.