Diabetes Board decisions

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus is presumed to have been incurred in service due to exposure to herbicides, and the Board finds that this presumption has not been rebutted.

The Veteran's bilateral foot bunions, prostate cancer, erectile dysfunction, diabetes mellitus, and left finger and hand neuropathy were not service-connected.,There was no evidence of exposure to herbicide agents or other presumptive conditions.

The Board is remanding the case to schedule a videoconference hearing for the appellant and to address her claims regarding service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death, including potential presumptive service connection due to Agent Orange exposure.

The Board found that the Veteran's impaired vision other than glaucoma was not incurred or aggravated in service, but awarded service connection for his glaucoma as secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The effective date of this award is set at January 12, 2004.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II. The disability rating for chronic degenerative disc disease at C5 was restored to 20 percent effective November 1, 2009.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining relevant SSA records and verifying herbicide exposure. A VA examination is also needed to determine if current disabilities are related to service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left knee disability is service-connected, but his diabetes and sleep apnea are not.

The Board has remanded the case due to uncertainty regarding the Veteran's exposure to herbicides, specifically in Thailand. The Veteran claims he was exposed on the perimeter road and that his job as an avionics maintenance or systems technician put him near the flight line.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus, type II, is presumed to have been caused by his herbicide exposure in service.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities did not prevent him from securing or following a substantially gainful occupation, thus he did not meet the criteria for TDIU.

The Board found that the Veteran's diabetes mellitus type II, bilateral cataracts, and erectile dysfunction have not been compensably disabling at any time during the initial rating period on appeal. As a result, the claims for higher ratings were denied.

The Board has granted service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II and its associated secondary disabilities (eye disability, hypertension, peripheral neuropathy of upper and lower extremities, and kidney disability) due to presumed exposure to herbicides during active duty. Service connection was also granted for bilateral hearing loss as a result of in-service noise exposure.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for diabetes mellitus was denied as no evidence prior to July 22, 2009 could be construed as a formal or informal claim of entitlement to service connection.,The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for coronary artery disease is pending and will need to be addressed in a Statement of the Case.

The Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including his lumbar spine disability and right lower extremity neuropathy, have rendered him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Veteran's claims for service connection are being remanded due to the need for additional development regarding his exposure to herbicides in Japan and Vietnam.

The Board has determined that additional development of the claim is required, including obtaining further medical evidence and a VA examination. The appeal will be remanded to the AOJ for this purpose.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and determining the nature and extent of his eye disorders.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus with erectile dysfunction is currently rated at 20 percent, but the Board finds that it does not meet the criteria for a higher rating as he does not require regulation of activities to manage his condition.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of information regarding the Veteran's exposure to Agent Orange and further development is needed.

The Veteran's TDIU claim is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining employment records and a new VA examination.