Other conditions decisions — 2001

The Board denied the waiver of recovery for the portfolio loan indebtedness, finding that the appellant was at fault in creating the debt and thus, VA could enforce the debt.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for bilateral pes cavus with metatarsalgia was granted, and service connection for left foot metatarsalgia was also established. However, the RO discontinued the evaluation for right pes cavus with metatarsalgia.

The Board found that the reduction in the disability rating for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma from 100 percent to 30 percent was not proper and restored the original 100 percent rating as of April 1, 2000.

The Board denied the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA pension benefits, finding that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for chest pain and pectus excavatum, finding that new evidence supports a reopening of these previously denied claims. The claim is now considered on its merits.

The Board has determined that recovery of the overpayment in full is not warranted due to fault on the part of the appellant and lack of undue hardship or unfair gain.

The veteran's appeal is on the issue of whether he should receive a higher rating for his service-connected impairment of the rectum. The RO has been instructed to take additional development steps, including scheduling an examination and obtaining all relevant medical records.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA benefits on the basis that her deceased spouse did not have verified service in the United States Armed Forces, to include service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, with the Philippine Scouts, or with the recognized guerillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Board found that the appellant's husband had no recognized military service with the Armed Forces of the United States, and therefore denied her claim for basic eligibility for VA death benefits.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for an eye disorder due to new and material evidence submitted, including his in-service duties involving missiles which he claims caused strain on his eyes.

The Board has granted the veteran's claim for a compensable rating for residuals, including scars, of shell fragment wounds of his lower legs. The case is now remanded to consider whether he is entitled to application of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine and if so, what the appropriate rating should be.

The Board found no evidence of service connection for the aortic aneurysm and denied the claim. For the stroke, the Board noted that there is insufficient medical evidence to attribute any of the claimed disabilities to the heparin overdose.

The Board has remanded the case to the RO for further development and readjudication due to new evidence requirements under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

The Board is remanding the case to review whether the appellant's discharge from service was under conditions other than dishonorable for VA benefits, including pension and compensation. The RO should search for additional records and determine if there are two claims files.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for his service-connected right great toe disorder, finding that the evidence does not support a higher evaluation than the current 10 percent.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 10% disability evaluation for service-connected angioneurotic edema was denied as there is no evidence of increased severity prior to the filing of his claim on June 26, 1998.

The Board has granted a 20 percent rating for TMJ syndrome and found that the veteran's fibrositis with migratory polyarthralgias warrants a 20 percent rating, but not higher.

The Board denied service connection for residuals of a right eye laceration due to lack of evidence linking the current condition to service.

The Board found that the appellant's postoperative residuals of a ruptured right Achilles tendon more nearly approximated a moderately severe disability than a severe disability, and thus denied an increased rating.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's right hip disability, finding that a separate rating of 10 percent is warranted for traumatic arthritis and that the criteria for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent have not been met.