Diabetes decisions — 2017

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus is currently rated at 20 percent, the minimum rating required for a diagnosis of diabetes requiring insulin and restricted diet or oral hypoglycemic agent and restricted diet. The Board finds no evidence to warrant an increase in this rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence added to the record and because statements of the case have not been issued for the diabetes and left knee disability claims. The hypertension claim is also being remanded.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, was not incurred in service and is not otherwise related to service. The claim for secondary service connection based on hypertension and abdominal aortic aneurysm was also denied.

The Board has dismissed the appeal due to the appellant's withdrawal of the appeal.

The Veteran's tinnitus was not found to be related to service, but he is granted TDIU based on his service-connected disabilities. His combined disability rating meets the criteria for a TDIU.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension, finding no evidence of exposure to herbicides or other chemicals during service. The Board also found that there was insufficient evidence linking current disabilities to service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is being remanded due to the need for additional information and examination.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and erectile dysfunction are being remanded due to the need for further medical development.

The Board has determined that the Veteran served in an area where Agent Orange or other herbicides were employed, and therefore he is presumed to have been exposed. The claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as well as the secondary claim for peripheral neuropathy, are granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete personnel records and requests for additional information. The Veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II is being reviewed again.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus was not incurred or aggravated by service, and the Board denied his claim as there is no evidence of herbicide exposure in Korea.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, particularly his peripheral neuropathy and diabetes mellitus with cataracts, are deemed to prevent him from securing or following substantially gainful employment. From September 7, 2012, to October 31, 2012, the Veteran's scrotal abscess was rated at 100%, and he had additional service-connected disabilities independently ratable at 60%.

The Veteran's service-connected diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the right and left upper extremities is currently rated at 20 percent prior to June 19, 2014, and 40 percent thereafter. The Board finds that the evidence supports a higher rating for both conditions.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to incomplete VA records and the need for updated examinations.

The Board found no evidence of exposure to herbicides/Agent Orange during service, and thus denied the Veteran's claim for service connection based on presumptive exposure. The diabetes was not shown to be related to service.

The Board has determined that the appellant's diabetes mellitus was not incurred or aggravated during a period of active duty service or active duty for training, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including verification of National Guard service and an expert opinion regarding herbicide exposure. The Veteran's claim will be reconsidered based on this additional evidence.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for GERD as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus is being remanded due to the need for a more definitive opinion regarding whether the diabetes mellitus aggravated the GERD.

The Veteran's claim for a separate compensable rating for diabetic retinopathy has not been substantiated, while his claim to reopen the previously denied chronic kidney disease claim is supported by new and material evidence. The Board found that the Veteran's eye condition did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to inadequate medical opinions and conflicting evidence regarding the Veteran's right ankle condition.