Board decisions

What the Board granted and denied for lower back conditions

By Hector K, Air Force veteranUpdated September 2026 from 1,479,738 Board decisions

In the Board decisions we have indexed since 2019, veterans raised 100,368 issues about lower back conditions. Of the ones it decided, the Board granted 38 percent. It sent 50 percent of all these issues back for more work.

Every decision counted here is an appeal. The regional office decided the claim first, the veteran disagreed, and the Board is the next step after that. These are not the odds on a first claim.

Since 2019

15,818granted
25,628denied
49,968sent back
38 percentgranted, of the ones decided

4,168 were reopened for a fresh look, which is not a grant and is not counted as one. 4,282 were dismissed or withdrawn. 504 ended some other way, or we could not read the outcome.

Across every year we have indexed, that is 321,240 issues across 258,219 decisions, 33 percent granted of the ones decided, and 47 percent sent back for more work.

What a remand is

A remand is not a yes or a no. The Board sends the claim back to the regional office for more work, such as a new exam or a record that was not in the file. The claim is decided again later, and that later decision is a separate document.

What showed up in the decisions

Swipe the table sideways to see every column.

Share of issues whose written decision mentions each item, by outcome, across every year we have indexed
What the decision mentionsGranted46,723 issuesDenied96,667 issues
A medical opinion, or the words nexus or at least as likely as not, anywhere in the decision69 percent68 percent
The words lay statement, buddy statement, or lay evidence54 percent59 percent
A hearing was held (the veteran or a witness testified)46 percent36 percent
The decision calls an exam or medical opinion inadequate10 percent6 percent

These are mentions in the written decision, not reasons for the outcome. A denied issue can mention a doctor's opinion just as a granted one does. Whether the opinion was for or against the claim, and the reasons it gave, are not something these counts can see. Each item is counted for the whole decision, so it may concern another issue decided in the same document.

Claimed together

A pair gets its own page once it appears at least 100 times and the Board decided at least 20 of them. Pairs below that are in the data but have no page.

Claimed as secondary to lower back conditions

Lower back conditions claimed as secondary to something else

Five recent decisions about lower back conditions

What this means for you

Three things carry a joint claim. Range of motion, measured in degrees. Functional loss, which is the rating rules' term for pain on use, weakness, tiring out, and the movements you cannot make. And a clear line from the injury in service to the joint that is painful now.

The exam carries a lot of weight. The rating rules say the exam has to show the functional loss, not just the degrees, and they count a joint that becomes painful on use as seriously disabled. Say what a bad day looks like, in plain words, and say it at the exam.

For a first claim, the link matters more than the pain. Service records that show the injury, the sick call visit, or a profile (the form that limited your duty) do the heavy lifting. A doctor's opinion that ties today's diagnosis to that event is what the Board reads for.

For a higher rating, the Board reads the numbers. Bring the degrees, the instability findings, and the words the rating rules use, like painful motion and functional loss. A statement from someone who watches you limp or stop mid-task fills in what the exam room misses.

Keep reading

Start my Claim Map

Free to use. The written playbook is $49.99 once, when it ships.

An issue is counted in a family by its diagnostic code or by the words in the issue. One issue can be counted in more than one family. Percent granted is of the ones the Board decided, so remands and dismissals are left out. The example decisions are recent ones we could link whose issue names this condition, chosen so that both outcomes are shown when we have them. Reopened claims and effective-date disputes are left out. Past decisions do not predict yours. Each page states the decisions from 2019 on, and says so, unless the Board decided too few of them since 2019 to give a percentage worth reading. Where that happens the page counts every year instead and tells you it has. This page is education, not legal advice. Rules quoted are from 38 CFR Parts 3 and 4, as published on the government's eCFR website. Board decisions are public records, linked at their source.