The Board remands the claim for a retrospective medical opinion on whether the topical corticosteroid treatments used prior to November 22, 2017, are considered systemic therapy.
The deciding factor: Remand is necessary due to insufficient information regarding the impact of the topical treatments and their classification as systemic therapy without a medical opinion.
- Claimed conditions
- folliculitis of the scalp
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 31, 2025
- Citation
- A25008939
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 163 · 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 A25008939.
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.
- Granted
The Board has granted service connection for folliculitis of the scalp and retained metal fragments in the scalp and cheek, both on a presumptive basis. The claims for chronic disability manifested by loss of appetite and chronic fatigue are denied as they are found to be manifestations of service-connected PTSD with alcohol use disorder.
- Granted
The Veteran's service connection claim for folliculitis of the scalp is granted. The Board found that a current diagnosis of folliculitis was established during service and not due to any pre-existing condition or another service-connected disability.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to additional development being required, including a vocational rehabilitation evaluation that assesses the Veteran's current limitations and their effect on his ability to perform in his occupational field. The issue of entitlement to VR&E benefits is still pending.
- Denied
The Board denied service connection for the Veteran's claimed alopecia hair conditions, finding that new and relevant evidence had not been submitted to reopen his claim. The Board concluded that there was no direct relationship between the Veteran's current condition and his military service.
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.