Other conditions decisions — 2003

The Board denied the claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for service-connected organic brain disease manifested by left upper extremity weakness, finding that there is no evidence to support an increased rating.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims of service connection for a left elbow disorder and Reiter's Syndrome, finding no current evidence of these conditions.

The Board denied the reduction of the veteran's disability rating from 60% to 20%, finding that the evidence did not support a restoration of the higher rating.

The veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the case is no longer under jurisdiction.

The Board has found that the veteran's service-connected chronic labyrinthitis presents an exceptional or unusual disability picture due to marked interference with employment, warranting referral for extraschedular consideration.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a left eye disorder attributable to his service or service-connected right eye disorder, and thus denied both claims for service connection and increased rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for schizoaffective disorder, finding no evidence of a chronic acquired psychiatric disorder during service or within one year after service. The Board concluded that the current psychiatric disability was not related to service.

The veteran's urinary disorder, diagnosed as chronic cystitis, was first shown in service. The Board found that the veteran's urinary symptoms were attributable to the disease entity diagnosed as chronic cystitis and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board has dismissed the appellant's claim for retroactive payment of benefits under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 3500 (Chapter 35, Survivors' and Dependents' Educational Assistance) as there is no legal merit to the appeal.

The Board found that there is no evidence linking the veteran's current degenerative changes of the right foot to any incident of service, including a claimed fracture. The preponderance of medical evidence does not support the claim for service connection.

The veteran's right great toe disability has been rated as traumatic arthritis at the metatarsophalangeal joint, resulting in a 10% evaluation since September 3, 1992.

The Board has determined that the character of the appellant's discharge constitutes a bar to certain VA benefits, including compensation and health care.

The Board has determined that there is no current evidence of residuals from a head injury or left eye injury incurred during service. The veteran's assertions have not been corroborated by medical records, and the VA examiners found no current disabilities.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a personality disorder. The claim is now reopened, but further development is required before it can be evaluated on its merits.

The Board has determined that the veteran's residuals of post-gastric resection with gastric reflux do not meet the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent, and his diastasis recti does not warrant a compensable rating. His service-connected post-traumatic stress disorder is currently rated as 30 percent disabling.

The Board found no evidence of a current liver condition, other than the service-connected cyst, and thus denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that an effective date of January 1, 1993 is warranted for the grant of DIC benefits due to VA hospitalization.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right hip disability, currently rated as 10 percent disabling, does not warrant a higher rating based on his complaints of pain and functional limitations.

The Board denied the veteran's request for waiver of an overpayment of VA pension benefits, finding no indication of fraud, misrepresentation, or bad faith on his part.

The veteran's claim for service connection for gum disease to establish eligibility for VA outpatient dental treatment was denied as he did not meet the criteria under the applicable regulations.