Menu
Menu

December 2, 2021 update

October 2021 Board of Veterans' Appeals decisions are now available in BVA Decision Search results

Veterans Crisis Line Badge

The Board of Veterans' Appeals Decision search results

 
Find pages with...
Page 1 of 12402 results — searched 36270
Query: ("m21-1")
effective date prior to March 29, 1989, to the Board for re- adjudication in accordance with the Court's remand order. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran initially claimed entitlement to service connection
VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras. 8.44-8.45
verification should be requested from USASCRUR. Regarding the personal assault, the VA ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL, M21-1 (MANUAL M21-1), Part III, 5.14c (Feb. 20, 1996) sets forth specific procedures
Citation Nr: 9931578 Decision Date: 11/08/99 Archive Date: 11/19/99 DOCKET NO. 98-03 912 DATE ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Denver, Colorado THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement
the provisions of Manual M21-1, regarding claims based on personal assault and the method of developing such cases are applicable to this case. According to Manual M21-1, VA has recognized that, because
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Winston-Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Whether new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen claims of service connection
evaluation for a condition of the "feet." These matters are likewise referred to the RO for appropriate consideration and any necessary action. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In August 1995 the RO found that new and
Citation Nr: 9928273 Decision Date: 09/30/99 Archive Date: 10/12/99 DOCKET NO. 95-01 572 DATE ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement
to March 1, 1999) (Court) has made it clear that the Board has a duty to address the new and material evidence issue regardless of the RO's actions. Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1, 4 (1995), aff'd, 83
In addition, VBA's Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part IV, directs the ROs to provide expeditious handling of all cases that have been remanded by the Board and the Court. See M21-1, Part IV, paras.
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Oakland, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a seizure disorder for accrued benefits purposes. 2. Entitlement
should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The provisions of M21-1 Part VI, 2.10(f) provide
issue involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). A claimant
at 38 C.F.R. pt. 3); VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1, Part III, paragraph 5.14c (Feb. 20, 1996); VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1, Part III, paragraph 7.47c(2) (Oct. 11, 1995). REASONS AND
with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The provisions of M21-1 Part VI, 2.10(f) provide that "the duty to assist will prevail while
That same month, the veteran replied and stated that he did not want an additional hearing. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. No competent medical evidence has bee presented to link diabetes mellitus, which was first
death must be denied. It has also been contended on the appellant's behalf that the Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part I
Appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Boston, Massachusetts THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder. 2. Entitlement to service connection
the DVB Circular have since been included in VA Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, part VI, para. 7.21 (hereinafter M21-1) (most recently revised on October 3, 1997). The VA must analyze the veteran's
the Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The provisions of M21-1 Part VI, 2.10(
on its own or capable of substantiation. Such a claim need not be conclusive, but only possible, to satisfy the initial burden of 38 U.S.C.A. ง 5107(a); Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78 (1990). To
Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). A well-grounded claim is a plausible claim that is meritorious on its own or capable of substantiation. See Murphy, 1 Vet. App. at 81. An allegation that
Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The provisions of M21-1 Part VI, 2.10(f)
1998 and a Statement of the Case was issued in August 1998. A substantive appeal was filed in September 1998 with no hearing requested. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran has presented no competent evidence
and SOC, the Board construes the letter's contentions liberally, particularly in the circumstances of this case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202 (1998); EF v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 324 (1991). By the same token, the
whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The provisions of M21-1 Part VI, 2.10(f) provide that "the duty
the Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The provisions of M21-1 Part VI, 2.10(
of the issues numbered 1, 5, 6, 7, and 12 above will be deferred pending completion of the development sought in the remand below.) FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran does not have sleep apnea. 2. The veteran
or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. Murphy, 1 Vet. App. at 81. A claimant cannot meet this burden merely by presenting lay
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Winston- Salem, North Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder of the feet. 2. Entitlement to service
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Providence, Rhode Island THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for coronary artery disease. 2. Entitlement to service
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Huntington, West Virginia THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability. 2. Entitlement to service connection for
involves medical causation or a medical diagnosis, competent medical evidence to the effect that the claim is plausible or possible is required. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990). A claimant
must be denied. The representative contends, in his appellate brief, that the Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI,
It has also been contended on the veteran s behalf that the Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change
informal hearing presentation, that the Board should determine whether the RO complied with M21-1, Part III, 1.03(a) (Change 50) (Feb. 23, 1996) and M21-1, Part VI, 2.10(f) (Change 48) (Aug. 5, 1996). The
requires reopening of a claim upon the submission of new and material evidence, was not enacted until 1988 and did not become effective until September 1, 1989. See Pub. L. No. 101-687, § 103(a)(1) (Nov.
arose if claim is received within 1 year after separation from service; otherwise, date of receipt of claim, or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(b)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus. 2. Entitlement to service connection
in service, and these avenues must be investigated. The VA Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 (M21-1) provides that the required credible supporting evidence of a noncombat stressor may be obtained from
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Columbia, South Carolina THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disorder, to include major depressive disorder.
M21-1, Part III, 5.14(c)(9); 12 Vet. App. 272 at 281. Here, the record indicates that attempts to obtain corroborating evidence of the veteran's alleged stressors, as outlined in M21-1, Part III, 5.14(
assault, which are contained in VA ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL M21-1, Part III, 5.14, are complied with. In completing the actions requested on remand, the RO also should comply with the relevant M21-
See Vargas-Gonzalez v. West, 12 Vet. App. 321, 328 (1999); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 56-57 (1990); 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(d)(1) (West 1991). With these requirements of law, and in light of the
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Jackson, Mississippi THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of chalazion excision from both eyelids and ptosis of
the decision of the Board herein is limited to the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran has a current medical diagnosis of PTSD which relates the diagnosis
of claims pertaining to mustard gas exposure is discussed in the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1, Part III, par. 5.18 (hereinafter M21-1). Manual M21-1 indicates that the testing of Navy volunteers
remanded the matter to the Board for development consistent with the parties' "Joint Motion for Remand and to For Stay of Further Proceedings" (Joint Motion). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. A June 1991 decision by
current symptomatology and the claimed inservice stressor. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(f) (1998); see also VA ADJUDICATION PROCEDURE MANUAL M21-1 (MANUAL M21-1), Part VI, 11.38 (Aug. 26, 1996) (reiterating the three
appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in St. Petersburg, Florida THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for upper respiratory disorder, to include chronic laryngitis. 2.
Can't find what you're looking for? The Board of Veterans' Appeals Decisions search results are limited to appeal decisions only. Try searching other VA sites for ("m21-1")