Other conditions decisions — 2000

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral vision loss is not well-grounded, and thus denied.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of death due to lack of new and material evidence, and found that the available evidence was not sufficient to support reopening the claim.

The veteran requested to withdraw his appeal, and the Board has dismissed it.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for service-connected thoracic spine disability, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were granted, with the left facial wound with retained shrapnel being directly connected to his active duty. The chest disability received a 20 percent rating effective October 7, 1996, and the knee condition received a 10 percent rating effective March 25, 1991.

The veteran died from a perforated appendicitis due to delirium tremens, which was related to alcoholism. The service-connected conditions did not contribute to his death.

The Board denied the veteran's claim that inheritance proceeds from 1992, 1993, and 1994 should not be considered as countable income for improved pension benefits.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected duodenal ulcer disease, finding that the evidence does not show moderate symptoms warranting a higher rating.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection of spondylolisthesis at L5-S1, finding that new and material evidence was not submitted to reopen the claim.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection and a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes, finding that his injuries were due to willful misconduct.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's compression fracture of L-1, currently rated at 40 percent.

The Board found that the veteran was solely at fault in creating the overpayment of improved pension benefits due to his failure to report all income, including interest from bank accounts and life insurance payments. Recovery would not be against equity and good conscience as it does not deprive the veteran of basic necessities or defeat the purpose of the benefit.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an effective date prior to September 1, 1997, for death pension benefits. The appellant alleged she tried to file a claim shortly after her husband's death but was told she had too much income to qualify. However, the Social Security Administration (SSA) records show that her application for survivor's benefits was received in October 1997, which is after the effective date of September 1, 1997.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a total disability rating due to individual unemployability was denied as the VA received his application on March 21, 1997.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for service connection for amputation of the 5th right toe, secondary to his service-connected residuals of osteoma, right astragalus, is not well grounded.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of August 13, 1990 for a 10 percent disability evaluation for photosensitivity due to ascertainable increase in service-connected disability during VA hospitalization starting on that date.

The VA determined that there is no evidence to support the claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 due to a left hip fracture, and thus denied the claim.

The veteran's claim for vocational rehabilitation benefits under Chapter 31, Title 38, United States Code is denied because the veteran does not have a service-connected disability.

The Board has determined that the appellant's service-connected hemorrhagic cyst of the right ovary does not warrant a compensable evaluation, and her service-connected endometriosis also does not interfere with her employment to an extent that would warrant a 10% rating under 38 C.F.R. § 3.324.