Diabetes decisions — 2024

The Veteran's death was not service-connected. The significant conditions contributing to his death included diabetes mellitus type II.,Service connection for diabetes mellitus type II is being remanded due to the unavailability of STRs and potential fire-related loss of records.,Heart disorder (including heart failure and coronary artery disease) on substitution basis is being remanded due to the unavailability of STRs and potential fire-related loss of records.,Right foot amputation, secondary to diabetes mellitus type II, is being remanded due to the unavailability of STRs and potential fire-related loss of records.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for ischemic heart disease and type II diabetes due to a lack of verification regarding his exposure within 12 nautical miles of the Republic of Vietnam while serving on the U.S.S. Dubuque.

Your appeals for service connection have been dismissed due to the Veteran's death.

The Veteran's claims for increased disability evaluations and effective dates were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a finding of entitlement to higher ratings or earlier effective dates.

The Board denied service connection for various conditions, including hypertension, prostate cancer, diabetes mellitus type II, stroke residuals, headaches, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy. The evidence did not show exposure to herbicides during service in Korea.

The Board has determined that a TERA-specific examination is required to determine if the Veteran's diabetes mellitus is related to his service as an aircraft structures mechanic, given his exposure risk activities. The case is being remanded for this purpose.

The Board has found that the Veteran's claims for service connection have been remanded due to errors in verifying his periods of active duty and National Guard service, as well as incomplete service treatment records. The claims will be reconsidered with this information.

The Board has granted service connection for hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and diabetic peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities due to exposure to herbicide agents in Vietnam. The conditions are presumed as a result of such exposure.

The Board has decided to remand the claim of service connection for diabetes due to a lack of a VA examination and medical opinion addressing its etiology. The Veteran's statements regarding lead paint exposure during active duty are considered credible, and he participated in a toxic exposure risk activity involving lead paint.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities have rendered him unable to secure and follow substantially gainful employment from September 7, 2018, to July 20, 2021. Effective September 7, 2018, the Veteran is granted Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of obstructive sleep apnea is granted. The Board finds that the December 2006 rating decision never became final, and entitlement to an effective date of March 2, 2005, was established.,Service connection for diabetes mellitus is denied as there is no evidence linking the Veteran's current diagnosis to service or within one year of separation. The Board finds that the positive evidence of record consists solely of the Veteran's lay belief in a causal link between service and his subsequent development of diabetes mellitus, which was not supported by medical records.,The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for bilateral pes planus and bilateral plantar fasciitis is granted. The Board finds that the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for a 10 percent rating under DC 5276.

The Veteran was awarded service connection for Ischemic Heart Disease (IHD) effective August 4, 2020.,Service connection for Peripheral Neuropathy of the Right Upper Extremity (RUE) and Left Upper Extremity (LUE) associated with Diabetes Mellitus, Type II were granted effective February 21, 2020.

The Board has granted service connection for type II diabetes mellitus, finding that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents during his service at Fort McClellan and that this condition is presumptively associated with such exposure.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for an earlier effective date of service connection for diabetes mellitus type II due to a finding of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the June 2014 rating decision, as there was no objective evidence for a consistent diagnosis of type II diabetes at that time.

The Veteran's allergic rhinitis was granted an increased rating to 10% effective from March 6, 2019.,Her initial claim for a higher rating for allergic rhinitis was denied. The Veteran's diabetes mellitus was granted an initial rating of 20%, and her request for a higher rating was also denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error, requiring another VA examination to determine if the Veteran's diabetes is related to service exposure.

The Board has granted service connection for diabetes mellitus but has remanded the issue of service connection for degenerative arthritis with degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine due to a lack of adequate opinion regarding whether the Veteran's lumbar spine disability was caused or aggravated by his service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the claims for diabetes mellitus, nephropathy, coronary artery disease, right shoulder disability, and left shoulder disability due to a failure to provide notice of the Veteran's right to a hearing before VA.

The Veteran was granted a total disability rating based on individual employability (TDIU) due to his service-connected disabilities preventing him from securing or following any substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has remanded the claims of service connection for right ankle condition, testicular cancer, diabetes, and left ear hearing loss due to insufficient information in the VA examination report. The claim for service connection for right ear hearing loss remains denied as it does not meet the criteria for a disability under VA regulations.