Other conditions decisions — 2005

The Board has denied the appellant's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of Chapter 35 educational assistance benefits in the amount of $1,027.34.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the surviving spouse of her deceased husband due to a lack of verification of his service dates and death, and because she did not continuously cohabit with him until his death.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities, alone, render him unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation. The Board has granted the claim for TDIU.

The veteran's appeal for service connection for multiple myeloma was dismissed due to his death.

The veteran's service-connected disabilities were not continuously rated totally disabling for a period of 10 or more years immediately preceding his death, nor does the evidence show that he would have met the statutory duration requirements but for clear and unmistakable error in a previous decision. Therefore, the claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1318 is denied.

The appellant's character of service is a bar to eligibility for Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits due to her uncharacterized (entry level separation) discharge, which is considered 'under conditions other than dishonorable' under VA regulations. As such, the threshold criteria for establishing basic eligibility are not met.

The Board has remanded the case for a travel board hearing due to the veteran's advanced age, and the appeal is not yet decided on its merits.

The veteran's claim for payment of medical expenses at Marshall Hospital was denied as she did not file a timely substantive appeal and her service-connected tachycardia disability was established after the last treatment date.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to an inadequate medical opinion regarding the consistency of the veteran's skin disorder with service conditions.

The Board has determined that there is no competent medical evidence showing a relationship between the veteran's right facial palsy with eye involvement and his service or any incident therein. As such, the claim for service connection is denied.

The VA determined that the veteran's right spermatocele and epididymis condition do not interfere with genitourinary functioning, voiding dysfunction, or renal dysfunction. Therefore, they denied an initial compensable evaluation for this condition.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the claim for service connection for a lung disorder.

The VA has determined that the veteran's thoracic spine disability does not warrant a compensable evaluation under the applicable rating criteria.

The VA determined that the veteran does not have a chronic acquired gynecological disorder manifested by a cyst on the left breast, and this condition was not incurred in or aggravated by active service.

The Board denied an effective date earlier than December 19, 1995 for benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.,The Board also remanded the issue of what evaluation is warranted for PTSD from March 29, 2002.

The VA denied an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the veteran's herniated nucleus pulposus, L4-L5 and L5-S1, as his disability did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under the applicable rating criteria.

The veteran seeks an increased evaluation for his service-connected residuals of a shell fragment wound of the right hip, currently rated at 20 percent. The case is being remanded to the RO for additional development and examination.

The VA denied a compensable rating for the veteran's service-connected residuals of tonsillectomy, finding no current compensable pathology.

The veteran's service-connected residuals of fractures of the third and fourth fingers of his left hand have not been manifested by unfavorable ankylosis, adverse symptomatology that equates to amputation of both fingers, or adverse symptomatology that equates to amputation with metacarpal resection.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete development, specifically failing to schedule an appropriate oncological examination and opinion.