Other conditions decisions — 2004

The Board denied a claim for an increased rating for bilateral central serous retinopathy with reduced visual fields, finding that the veteran's vision did not warrant a rating in excess of 20 percent prior to February 26, 2003.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as a 'child' for VA benefits purposes, finding that she did not meet the criteria of becoming permanently incapable of self-support before her 18th birthday.

The Board has determined that the veteran's dysthymic disorder had its origins in service and granted service connection for this condition.

The Board found that the veteran's cause of death, arteriosclerotic vascular disease leading to infarct of the bowel, was not caused or aggravated by a service-connected disability.

The veteran's claims for increased evaluations of his right upper arm amputation, left index finger amputation, and defective hearing in the left ear have been denied. The maximum ratings currently assigned are at issue.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits due to a certification from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) stating that her late husband had no service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current bronchiectasis is related to pneumonia and bronchitis he experienced during service, granting his claim for service connection.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a grant of total rating based upon individual unemployability (TDIU) as established by March 31, 2000. The decision found that there was no legal basis to award an earlier effective date.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for rectal cancer and bladder disability, finding no evidence linking these conditions to his military service or exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied the appellant's petition to reopen his claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted since the last final denial in June 1980.

The veteran's claims for increased rating, service connection, and special monthly compensation were denied. The right thigh condition is rated at 30 percent disabling.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of VA educational assistance benefits, calculated in the amount of $1,822.67, was properly created and granted a waiver of recovery.

The veteran claims service connection for basal cell carcinoma of the skin, which he attributes to radiation exposure during service. The claim is being remanded due to incomplete evidence and need for a VA examination.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to inadequate VCAA notice, need for a new VA examination, and additional clinical evidence received since the last decision.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and review, including obtaining medical records and verifying the veteran's status as a POW. The issue of nonservice-connected death pension benefits is also being addressed due to the appellant filing a notice of disagreement.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for a right eye disability due to new and material evidence. However, the left eye disability is not considered incurred in or aggravated by service.

The Board granted the veteran's claim for an annual clothing allowance from August 1, 2001 as she had a service-connected disability (otitis externa) that required use of Gentian Violet medication which caused irreparable damage to her outer garments.

The Board determined that the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of pension benefits was timely, as it was received within 180 days following notification of indebtedness.

The Board found no evidence of ulcers during the veteran's service or within one year post-service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the overpayment of VA improved pension benefits was not waived due to fault on both sides, and thus denied the veteran's request for a waiver.