Other conditions decisions — 2003

The Board found that the reduction of the veteran's VA disability compensation benefits to a 10 percent level, effective September 13, 1996, following his incarceration for a felony was proper.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence. The veteran's case is now being sent back to the Regional Office (RO) for the requested development, including obtaining medical records and arranging for a genitourinary examination.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility to receive a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes due to insufficient active service, finding that he did not meet the required 90 days of active duty.

The Board found that the veteran's claim for service connection for teeth numbered 3, 4, and 5 is not shown as a matter of law due to lack of evidence supporting such entitlement.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been presented to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a back injury, but it is unclear whether this evidence establishes service connection due to the complexity of the case.

The Board has granted a 10 percent evaluation for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a shrapnel wound to the right foot, which is currently rated as degenerative joint disease with pain. The issue on appeal remains limited to this specific claim.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for Berger's disease due to a lack of proper notification and development under the VCAA, as well as failure to obtain all relevant medical records. The case is being remanded for further action.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits due to a lack of qualifying service as per the requirements set forth in Title 38 of the United States Code and regulations.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for non-service connected VA pension benefits due to lack of wartime service, which is required for such benefits.

The Board denied the motion to revise the August 2001 decision, finding no clear and unmistakable error.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current disability or additional disability claimed as back and lower extremity impairment is not demonstrated by objective clinical evidence, thus denying his claim for compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board has ordered further development due to pending issues and is remanding the case back to the Regional Office for additional examination and consideration.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including obtaining medical records from VA facilities and conducting additional examinations. The appeal is remanded for these purposes.

Your case is being sent back to the Regional Office for further development, including obtaining records from Emory Crawford Long Hospital. The appeal will be returned to you if any benefits are still denied.

The Board has ordered further development in the veteran's case, including obtaining service records and arranging for a VA examination. The appeal is remanded to allow for additional evidence collection and review.

The Board found that the evidence did not show in-service manifestations, diagnosis, or treatment for the claimed disability of vitiligo. The veteran's service medical records and separation examination were silent for any complaints, treatments, or diagnoses related to vitiligo.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn, and the Board no longer has jurisdiction over this case.

The Board has ordered further development due to the need for additional evidence regarding the veteran's claimed stressors and service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The case is now remanded for this purpose.

The RO denied reopening the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of spinal meningitis due to lack of new and material evidence.

The Board found that the veteran had the necessary testamentary capacity to change his NSLI beneficiary from his wife (appellant) to his sister (appellee). The proceeds of the policy are therefore awarded to the appellee.