Other conditions decisions — 2003

The Board has determined that the proper delimiting date for the appellant's Chapter 35 educational assistance benefits is April 3, 2001. The appeal was granted as this date falls within the applicable period of eligibility.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that new and material evidence had not been received.

The Board denied the claim that the veteran's death was caused by Agent Orange exposure and also denied service connection for a malignant brain tumor as a result of exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's left elbow fracture, finding that the evidence did not show ankylosis or limitation of motion to a degree warranting a higher rating.

The Board denied service connection for the claimed nose fracture and head injury residuals due to a lack of credible evidence showing the injuries occurred during active duty.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence and clarification. The case is now remanded to the RO for specific actions, including obtaining a respiratory examination.

The Board has granted a higher evaluation for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a gunshot wound to the left heel, currently rated at 10 percent. The veteran's PTSD remains at 30 percent.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claim of service connection for arthritis of the left hip.

The July 1980 and April 1981 RO rating decisions assigning zero percent evaluations for residuals of fractures of the right fibula, tibia, and femur are not found to contain CUE. The veteran's claims for increased evaluations for residuals of fractures of the right leg and fracture of the right femur with instability of the right knee were denied.

The Board denied the appellant's requests to reopen her claims for DIC and death pension benefits, finding that no new and material evidence had been presented.

The Board found no evidence of a current gastrointestinal disorder or diverticulitis related to service, and denied the veteran's claim.

The Board found that the veteran's actions contributed to the creation of the loan guaranty indebtedness and did not constitute fraud, misrepresentation or bad faith. The Board determined that recovery of the debt would not violate principles of equity and good conscience as it would not result in undue hardship for the veteran.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current spine disorder resulted from an injury sustained in service, and therefore grants service connection for this condition.

The veteran's skin disorder of the feet and toenails was first diagnosed during service, and there is evidence of continuity of symptoms since then. The Board finds that this condition can be linked to his military service.

The Board has granted a 30 percent evaluation for the veteran's residuals of head trauma, which is currently rated as 10 percent disabling.

The Board has determined that the veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma is at least as likely as not related to his service, including exposure to environmental hazards during active duty. As a result, the claim for service connection is granted.

The Board has decided that the overpayment of pension benefits should be denied, and further development is needed to address the appellant's claim for additional pension benefits as a widow with one dependent.

The Board has ordered further development due to insufficient evidence for service connection of post traumatic stress disorder. The case is now remanded for additional development.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine the current severity of the veteran's service-connected bilateral pterygium and its impact on his vision. The RO will obtain additional medical records, provide notice under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), and schedule a VA ophthalmological examination.

The Board dismissed the motion for CUE because it did not meet the specific allegations required by the regulations.