Diabetes Board decisions

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for his service-connected conditions were denied. The RO granted service connection and assigned initial ratings, but the veteran disagreed with these determinations.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding no nexus between any service-connected disability and the cause of death.

The veteran's PTSD is rated at 50 percent, the maximum available rating. The other claims for increased ratings are denied.

The Board found that the veteran's diabetes mellitus was not present during service or for many years thereafter, and it was not caused by any incident of service. Therefore, the claim for service connection is denied.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus was not incurred in or aggravated during active service and cannot be presumed to have been incurred due to exposure to herbicides. The claim for service connection is denied.

The veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II was denied prior to April 29, 2002. However, since that date, the disability picture more nearly approximates the requirements for a 40 percent evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, hypertension, coronary artery disease (CAD), and bilateral lower extremity neuropathy as secondary to exposure to herbicides, specifically Agent Orange. The Board found that there was no evidence of such exposure in Vietnam and thus could not presume it.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and Meniere's disease, finding no evidence of these conditions during or within one year after his military service. The claim for diabetes mellitus was denied as there is no positive association between exposure to herbicides and any other condition warranting a presumption of service connection.

The Board has granted service connection for coronary artery disease as secondary to the veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II.

The veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the initial rating for diabetes mellitus, type 2.

The case is remanded to determine whether the veteran's need for aid and attendance due to his Schizophrenia alone, or in combination with other non-service-connected disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to incomplete medical records and for a VA examination.

The veteran's application for Service Disabled Veterans Insurance (RH) was denied because he is not in 'good health' according to the standards established by the VA, as his non-service-connected disabilities exceed the threshold of 300 percent mortality.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus with associated complications is rated at the highest available rating of 40 percent. Ratings for peripheral neuropathy are granted at 10 percent each for both lower extremities.

The Board found no evidence of diabetes mellitus during service or within one year post-service, and the veteran did not set foot in Vietnam. The claim for service connection was denied as there is no credible evidence that his current diabetes mellitus is related to his naval service.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for Type II diabetes, which is presumed due to herbicide exposure, was denied as the prior denial of the claim occurred before September 25, 1985 and thus is not subject to the Nehmer stipulation.

The veteran's claims for higher initial ratings for service-connected Type II diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, hypertension, peripheral neuropathy of the lower and upper extremities, and retinopathy have been denied. The RO increased the rating for Type II diabetes mellitus to 40 percent effective May 8, 2001.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hypertension is proximately due to and aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, thus granting service connection for hypertension as secondary to diabetes.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to new evidence and potential private treatment records.

The veteran's death was not due to any service-connected condition, and there were no pending claims for accrued benefits at the time of his death. Therefore, the appellant is denied accrued benefits.