The veteran's claim for service connection for myeloma cancer was denied. The veteran's request for a higher rating for diabetes mellitus type II was denied, but the request for a 60 percent rating for bilateral diabetic retinopathy with macula edema was granted. The issues of hypertension and total disability rating based on individual unemployability were remanded.
The deciding factor: The decision was based on the absence of a current diagnosis of myeloma cancer and the evidence showing that the veteran's diabetes mellitus is manageable by diet alone, while the veteran's bilateral diabetic retinopathy meets the criteria for a 60 percent rating.
- Claimed conditions
- myeloma cancer, diabetes mellitus type II, bilateral diabetic retinopathy, hypertension
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- Agent Orange / herbicides
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 13, 2025
- Citation
- A25002903
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 831 · Granted: 48% (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 A25002903.
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 Board has remanded the claims for service connection for hypertension and peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral upper and lower extremities due to insufficient medical opinions regarding their etiology.
- 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.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including VA examinations.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to conflicting opinions regarding service connection for peripheral neuropathy, hypertension, and skin disabilities related to herbicide exposure.
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.