The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate medical opinions and a failure to comply with VA regulations regarding pre-decisional duty to assist. The Veteran's salivary gland condition, including residuals of surgical removal, is being reviewed for service connection based on exposure to burn pits during service.
The deciding factor: The decision was remanded because the medical opinions were inadequate and there was a failure to comply with VA regulations regarding pre-decisional duty to assist.
- Claimed conditions
- status post salivary glands removal with residuals
- How they argued it
- Presumptive (no nexus needed)
- Exposure basis
- Burn pits / airborne hazards
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- February 11, 2026
- Citation
- A26012777
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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation A26012777.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: Granted
Service connection for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) is granted. The appeal as to the issue of entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction is dismissed.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: Granted
The Veteran's tinnitus is presumed to have been incurred in service due to noise exposure during his time in Vietnam.
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.