BVA decisions by condition

Prostate malignant neoplasm: BVA grant rates and what wins

From 2017 to 2026, the Board of Veterans' Appeals decided a prostate malignant neoplasm issue in 7,872 decisions. It granted the prostate malignant neoplasm issue in 31.0% of them, above the 19.4% grant rate for all conditions, denied it in 31.2%, and remanded it in 37.1%. Counting only decisions on the merits (granted or denied), 49.9% were granted.

Decisions

7,872

2017–2026

Granted

31.0%

All conditions: 19.4%

Granted on the merits

49.9%

Granted ÷ (granted + denied)

Remanded

37.1%

Denied: 31.2%

Prostate malignant neoplasm outcomes by year

YearDecisionsGrantedDeniedRemanded
2017
321
21.2%46.7%29.6%
2018
654
22.6%38.2%36.4%
2019
934
26.3%34.6%38.0%
2020
991
30.0%30.8%38.5%
2021
833
28.8%34.3%36.9%
2022
1,011
35.6%27.9%36.7%
2023
939
35.5%27.8%36.3%
2024
931
36.9%26.0%36.5%
2025
920
31.7%27.7%39.7%
2026
338
33.1%29.3%37.0%

Evidence in granted and denied prostate malignant neoplasm decisions

For each kind of supporting evidence: how often the Board granted the prostate malignant neoplasm issue on the merits when the decision mentioned it, compared with decisions that did not. These are associations, not causes, and evidence is recorded per decision, not per issue.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Positive nexus opinion1,08975.6%44.1%+31.5 pts
Buddy statement40174.4%48.2%+26.3 pts
Favorable VA exam75365.3%47.6%+17.7 pts
Treating physician opinion43058.9%49.2%+9.6 pts
Combat service44158.7%49.3%+9.4 pts
Private medical opinion2,43755.1%47.0%+8.1 pts
Claimed as secondary98044.1%50.4%−6.3 pts
Lay statement5,90046.6%63.4%−16.8 pts
  • The Board applied the benefit-of-the-doubt rule (38 CFR 3.102) in 68.6% of the decisions that granted prostate malignant neoplasm.
  • The Board found the veteran's statements credible in 43.5% of grants and 10.8% of denials.

Negative evidence in the record

An unfavorable exam or a negative nexus opinion often sits in the same record as favorable evidence, and the Board weighs them against each other. So these rows show how often prostate malignant neoplasm was still granted when the record contained the negative item, not that the item helped.

In the recordDecisionsGranted when presentWhen absentDifference
Negative nexus opinion2,71534.7%58.5%−23.9 pts
Unfavorable VA exam4,17837.0%66.8%−29.9 pts

Why the Board granted or denied prostate malignant neoplasm

Most common reasons in grants

  1. Current diagnosis established326
  2. Prostate cancer is presumptively linked to herbicide exposure82
  3. Veteran served in thailand during vietnam era76
  4. Veteran diagnosed with prostate cancer63
  5. Prostate cancer is a presumptive condition for herbicide exposure55
  6. Prostate cancer is a presumptive condition under 38 c.f.r. § 3.309(e)41
  7. Presumed exposure to herbicide agents36
  8. Prostate cancer is a presumptive disease associated with herbicide exposure32

Most common reasons in denials

  1. No in-service complaints, treatment or diagnosis291
  2. Preponderance of the evidence against the claim284
  3. VA examiner: less likely than not related to service179
  4. Service records negative or silent173
  5. No continuity of symptomatology93
  6. Current diagnosis established72
  7. No current diagnosis70
  8. No evidence of herbicide exposure47

Numbers are decisions that gave the reason. Reasons are short phrases extracted by AI from each decision; common wordings of the same reason are grouped. Benefit of the doubt is reported above.

Recent prostate malignant neoplasm decisions

Granted

Citation Nr. A26040768B.T. Knope · 2026

Veteran served 30+ days at Camp Lejeune during contamination period; Prostate cancer not presumptively linked to Camp Lejeune water; February 2024 VA exam established nexus to toxic exposure

Citation Nr. A26040684Michael J. Skaltsounis · 2026

Prostate cancer is eligible for presumptive service connection based on herbicide exposure.; No presumptive service connection due to lack of Vietnam service or documented AO exposure.; Board found evidence in approximate balance for direct service connection of herbicide exposure.; Veteran's lay statements regarding AO exposure were found credible and probative.; Benefit of the doubt applied to grant direct service connection.

Citation Nr. A26040774Paul Sorisio · 2026

Criteria for 60% rating met; No local recurrence or metastasis; Residuals approximated urine leakage requiring appliance

Denied

Citation Nr. 26005096S. Heneks · 2026

No evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation; No nexus to service or claimed exposures; Prostate cancer did not originate in service, within a year of service, or is not otherwise etiologically related to active service

Citation Nr. A26040464Jennifer White · 2026

No established in-service event (herbicide exposure); Service treatment records negative for prostate cancer; No VA examination required due to lack of in-service event

Citation Nr. A26039310Michael Martin · 2026

Evidence weighs against service connection; No indication of in-service onset; No indication of toxic exposure contribution; Denied per 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107

Rules that apply to prostate malignant neoplasm claims

Research your prostate malignant neoplasm case

Narrow by year, judge, evidence or secondary condition, read the decisions, and export a research memo.

Open VA Law Explorer

How these numbers are calculated

  • Rates count decisions in which the Board decided a prostate malignant neoplasm issue, by the outcome of that issue. Other issues in the same decision can have different outcomes.
  • “Granted on the merits” leaves out remands and dismissals. “All conditions” is the grant share across every condition issue in the data.
  • The data comes from CaseScribe's AI extraction of public BVA decisions (2017–2026) and can contain errors. It is updated automatically as new decisions are added.