Diabetes decisions — 2006

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy and therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran served in Vietnam and is presumed to have been exposed to Agent Orange. As a result, diabetes mellitus, which is one of the conditions presumptively associated with such exposure, is granted as service-connected.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hypertension is not caused by or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, and thus denied the claim for service connection.

The Board denied service connection for arthritis of the neck, back, hands, hips, and diabetes mellitus (DM) as there was no competent evidence showing these conditions were incurred in or aggravated by service.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death and eligibility for Survivors' and DEA under Chapter 35, Title 38, of the United States Code due to insufficient evidence linking the veteran's death to his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of March 21, 2001 for his nonservice-connected pension benefits due to a lack of evidence showing he was incapacitated within one year prior to filing the claim.

The veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus is being remanded due to the need for a VA examination.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and secondary service connection for hypertension, a heart condition, peritoneal neuropathy, retinal neuropathy, a bilateral foot condition, and erectile dysfunction (claimed as secondary to diabetes mellitus). The denial was based on the conclusion that the veteran's diabetes mellitus is not etiologically related to presumed herbicide exposure.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including verification of his service dates and consideration of additional evidence.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that her current diagnosis is not related to her service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hospitalization at Norton Community Hospital for an emergency condition was necessary and that no feasible VA facilities were available, thus allowing reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus is rated at 40 percent, and his service-connected peripheral vascular disease is found to be secondary to the diabetes mellitus. The Board grants these claims.

The Board has found no evidence linking the veteran's melanoma of the left eye to his military service or exposure to Agent Orange, and thus denied service connection for this condition.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development regarding his claim of service connection for diabetes mellitus due to exposure to Agent Orange at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.

The Board has ordered additional development due to the need for records from VA medical centers and private doctors, as well as clarification of service connection theory.

The Board has determined that the veteran did not incur cardiomyopathy or diabetes mellitus in service and these conditions are not otherwise related to service. Therefore, both claims for service connection have been denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for authorization of special mode transportation benefits due to lack of medical need as defined by VA guidelines, despite his service-connected disabilities and blindness.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus contributed to cause his cerebrovascular accident, and therefore grants service connection for residuals of a cerebrovascular accident as secondary to service-connected diabetes.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for hearing loss and granted it. The claim for diabetes mellitus was denied as there is no current evidence of the disability.

The Board is remanding the case for additional development to address new and material evidence claims, exposure to herbicides during service, and other procedural issues.