Other conditions decisions — 2000

The veteran's appeal for a greater subsistence allowance under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code, for his participation in an apprenticeship program from September 21, 1998 to December 31, 1998 is denied.

The veteran's claim for restoration of a 60 percent rating for pancreatitis, including service connection for abdominal adhesions as secondary to pancreatitis, is granted.

The veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for his service-connected low back disability is denied as the evidence does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.

The Board found insufficient evidence to support the claim of service connection for diphtheria, as there is no current diagnosis or link between the claimed condition and service. The appellant's testimony was not considered sufficient medical evidence.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a head and neck injury to include memory loss was not well-grounded due to lack of evidence showing a nexus between his current disabilities and an in-service injury.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a neck injury and subsequent development of Brown-Sequard syndrome, finding that there is no well-grounded evidence to support the claim.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence was submitted to reopen the claim, and as a result, service connection for the right shoulder disorder is granted based on aggravation of a pre-existing condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection due to a lack of evidence showing that his polyostotic fibrous dysplasia was aggravated by military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim as there is no competent medical evidence linking his current myopia and low astigmatism to an inservice eye injury.

The Board found that the veteran's claims for service connection were not well grounded, as there was no competent medical evidence linking his current skin disorder or right elbow disorder to his military service. The Board also noted that the veteran did not have a current diagnosis of a right elbow disability.

The veteran's claim for service connection for a skin rash is being remanded due to inconsistencies in the medical evidence and the need for further examination.

The veteran's appeal for an increased rating for a healed fracture of the acetabulum and pubis area has been dismissed as he withdrew his appeal prior to the Board's decision.

The Board denied the appellant's eligibility for home loan guaranty benefits under Chapter 37, Title 38 of the United States Code due to his discharge being other than honorable.

The Board has determined that the veteran's gastrointestinal disability, including peptic ulcer disease, hiatal hernia, duodenal ulcer, and colon polyps, is not service-connected as secondary to his service-connected PTSD or inservice exposure to Agent Orange. The claim for an earlier effective date for a total rating due to service-connected PTSD has been granted.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to inadequate contemporaneous examination and missing medical studies.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection is well grounded and grants the claim.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA death pension benefits and/or DIC benefits based on her alleged status as a child of the veteran due to lack of legal merit. The appeal is not about service connection at all.

The Board has determined that recovery of the overpayment would be against equity and good conscience, thus granting waiver of recovery of the overpayment in the amount of $5,558.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claims of service connection for a tremor of the left hand and a skin disorder are well grounded. The claim for a tremor of the left hand is granted as it is related to his service-connected headaches or PTSD. However, the claim for a skin disorder is not granted because there is no evidence of a disease listed in 38 U.S.C.A. § 1116(a) or 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e), and thus the presumptive provisions do not apply.

The Board denied the termination of the veteran's daughter's apportionment of his VA pension benefits, finding that she does not meet the criteria for an apportionment due to her lack of dependency and the absence of legal responsibility for her support.