Diabetes Board decisions

The Board denied service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death as there was no competent evidence linking any of his disabilities to his active service or a service-connected disability.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus on a presumptive basis, as the Veteran did not have actual duty or visitation in the Republic of Vietnam. The issue regarding secondary service connection is being remanded for further development.

The Board denied service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus as it was not shown to be related to the veteran's active service, including any herbicide exposure.

The Board denied service connection for diabetes mellitus as there was no evidence of exposure to herbicides in service and no competent evidence linking the condition to service.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as there was no evidence of a current diagnosis and he did not have actual duty or visitation in Vietnam.

The Board found that the preponderance of the evidence is against service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as it was not manifested during active service or within one year thereafter.

The Board denied service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, and hypertension as they were not shown to be related to the Veteran's military service or any herbicide exposure.

The appeal is remanded to the RO for further development and readjudication of the claim.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied as the evidence did not support higher ratings or service connection.

The veteran's claim for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to include PTSD, was reopened and denied. The claims for service connection for diabetic nephropathy, heart disease, and hypertension were also denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for type II diabetes mellitus as there was no evidence that it existed during military service or for many years thereafter, nor any competent medical evidence relating his diabetes to his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, type II, as there was no evidence of in-service exposure to herbicides or a link between his current condition and his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that the preponderance of the evidence showed that DM was not present in service or until many years thereafter and is not related to service or to an incident of service origin, including exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board denied service connection for hypertension and skin discoloration as there was no evidence linking the conditions to herbicide or ionizing radiation exposure during service. The Veteran's type II diabetes mellitus claim is being remanded.

The Veteran's diabetes mellitus was rated at 40 percent, and his post-operative residuals of prostate cancer were not found to warrant a rating higher than the currently assigned levels.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the claims for service connection for an anal fissure, an intestinal disorder, and left ear hearing loss. However, the veteran does not have diabetes mellitus, type 2, sinusitis, or an eye disability as a result of his active military service, nor are any of the other claimed conditions related to his service.

The veteran's appeal for service connection for Type II diabetes mellitus, hypertension, right wrist arthritis, and residuals of a right leg fracture was withdrawn. Service connection was granted for residuals of a left ankle fracture and right foot calluses.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus with retinopathy, as it did not meet the criteria for a higher disability rating.

The veteran's PTSD was rated at 70 percent, and the claims for service connection for tinnitus, diabetes mellitus, type II, a left ankle disorder, and TDIU were remanded.

The appeal was partially granted, as new and material evidence was found to support the claim for a low back disorder. However, no service connection was established for other conditions.