The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral eye disabilities due to duty-to-assist errors, including obtaining missing service records and private treatment records.
The deciding factor: The decision is based on the need to correct duty-to-assist errors that occurred prior to the January 2021 rating decision on appeal.
- Claimed conditions
- trichiasis, allergic symptomatology
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- April 2, 2026
- Citation
- A26030030
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 A26030030.
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.
- Denied
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The claim for an increased rating for hiatal hernia with GERD was denied as the symptoms did not meet the criteria for a higher rating. Service connection claims for blepharitis, trichiasis, lumbosacral radiculopathy and piriformis syndrome, peripheral neuropathy of the right side, and peripheral neuropathy of the left side were also denied.
- Denied
The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The claim for an increased rating for hiatal hernia with GERD was denied as the symptoms did not meet the criteria for a higher rating. Service connection claims for blepharitis, trichiasis, lumbosacral radiculopathy and piriformis syndrome, peripheral neuropathy of the right side, and peripheral neuropathy of the left side were also denied.
- Denied
The Veteran's surgeries for eyelid issues did not result in additional disability due to carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment or similar instance of fault on the part of VA. The Board denied compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 and TDIU.
- Denied
The Veteran's left eye blindness and other related conditions are not considered to be the result of VA carelessness, negligence, or similar fault. The Board finds that the current condition is a foreseeable consequence of his treatment for cancer.
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.