Loading decisions…
Loading decisions…
1,102 vetted Board decisions in 2006.
The veteran's claim is being remanded to determine if his above-the-knee right leg amputation was related to or aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II.
The Board found that the severance of service connection for the veteran's diabetes mellitus and secondary arteriosclerotic heart disease was improper due to ambiguity in the record regarding the veteran's physical presence in Vietnam.
The Board has granted service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus, finding that the veteran's exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam is presumed and resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the veteran.
The Board has granted service connection for diabetes mellitus and peripheral neuropathy of the hands, arms, and feet on a presumptive basis due to active military service. Service connection for bilateral hearing loss, poor blood circulation, and numbness of the hands, arms, and feet is denied.
The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for herbicide exposure is denied. The appeal related to other issues, including a claim for an increased evaluation for back disability and claims for service connection for heart disability and hypertension.
The Board has determined that the veteran's Type II diabetes mellitus is presumed to have been incurred in service due to his Vietnam-era service, and thus grants service connection for this condition.
The veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus, peripheral neuropathy of the right and left legs, and erectile dysfunction are currently rated as 20 percent disabling. The Board finds that these conditions do not warrant a higher rating.
The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a Travel Board hearing in San Juan, Puerto Rico. The disability rating for diabetes mellitus remains at 20 percent.
The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus, iron overload syndrome, and atrial fibrillation. The veteran's claims were based on his exposure to chemicals during military service, but there was no competent evidence linking these conditions to his time in service.
The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and providing proper VCAA notification.
The veteran's diabetes mellitus is presumed to have developed as a result of herbicide exposure during service. The veteran's pulmonary disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by his active service.
The veteran's claim is being remanded due to the need for additional medical records and a VA examination to assess the severity of his diabetes disability.
The VA has determined that the veteran's bilateral diabetic retinopathy does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation since March 15, 2001.
The Board denied the veteran's request for payment of medical expenses incurred from August 12-18, 2002 due to a lack of evidence showing he had been in receipt of VA medical services within the 24-month period preceding the treatment.
The Board denied all service connection claims, finding no evidence of a current disability related to the veteran's period of service. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 was also denied.
The veteran's claim for an increased rating for diabetes mellitus is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining treatment records and providing notice regarding effective dates.
The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating for type II diabetes mellitus and a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss. The veteran was granted service connection for both conditions, but his initial ratings were found to be inadequate.
The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, arthritis of the hands, hypothyroidism, and bilateral bunionectomies. The conditions were not present in service or within one year of separation, and there was no evidence linking these conditions to service.
The veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus was denied as there is no medical evidence linking the condition to his period of service.
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.