Diabetes Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining medical records and conducting examinations to determine if service connection can be established for the veteran's conditions.

The veteran's diabetes mellitus was initially rated at 40 percent prior to March 1, 2004. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on insulin use or regulation of activities.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus, residuals of stroke, kidney disorder, and prostate disorder as secondary to his service-connected psychoneurosis (anxiety and conversion).

The Board found that diabetes mellitus was not incurred or aggravated during the appellant's period of ACDUTRA and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining additional medical records and conducting a VA examination.

The VA granted a 20 percent rating for diabetes mellitus, effective July 9, 2001.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen his previously denied claim.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to verify if the veteran served ashore in Vietnam and collected mail, which could potentially establish herbicide exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to uncertainty regarding whether the veteran served in Vietnam during the Vietnam era, which is crucial for determining presumptive service connection for diabetes mellitus type II.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for type-II diabetes mellitus, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated during active service and not related to any in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for diabetes mellitus with onychomycosis and peripheral neuropathy of the lower extremities, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for higher disability ratings.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus II with sensorimotor polyneuropathy, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by his active duty service and could not be presumed to have been caused by exposure to herbicides.

The veteran's initial evaluation for diabetic retinopathy was granted at 10 percent, which is the maximum schedular rating available under Diagnostic Code 6011. The Board found that his eye disability warranted a 10 percent evaluation based on hemorrhages in both eyes.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to incomplete evidence and need for additional VA medical examinations.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by his military service and could not be presumed due to Agent Orange exposure. The veteran served aboard an aircraft carrier off the coast of Vietnam but did not set foot on land there.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus type II, visual complications of diabetes mellitus, hypertension, residuals of fractured ribs, and aneurysm of the chin with blood clots. The Board found that these conditions were not related to military service.

The veteran's claims for service connection for diabetes mellitus and hypertension were denied as there was no evidence of their onset during active duty or within one year after separation, and the Board found that the current diagnoses are not related to his military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased evaluation of his right shoulder disability and service connection for diabetes. The right shoulder disability was rated as noncompensable, while diabetes was not found to be related to service or herbicide exposure.

The veteran's claim for service connection for diabetes insipidus is being remanded due to the need for additional evidence and development.

The Board has received notification from the appellant that they wish to withdraw their appeal. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.