Other conditions decisions — 2005

The Board has determined that the evidence received since the February 2000 RO decision is not new and material, thus denying the reopening of the claim for recognition of POW status.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an increased disability evaluation for his service-connected defective vision of the right eye, which is currently rated as 30 percent disabling.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits as her late husband had no qualifying service with the U.S. Armed Forces and thus is not considered a 'veteran' for purposes of establishing eligibility to VA benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The veteran is entitled to an effective date of April 1, 1987 for the award of additional benefits for a dependent spouse.

The veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to his withdrawal of the appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Board found that the veteran's current back disorder did not originate during service or until several years after his last discharge, and was not caused or chronically worsened by his service-connected Hodgkin's disease.

The Board found that the veteran's arthritis of the feet was not related to his cold injury in service and denied service connection for this condition. However, the Board granted service connection for residuals of a cold injury to the feet.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's dysthymic disorder, finding that it did not meet the criteria for a 70 percent rating under either the old or new VA rating criteria.

The Board has remanded the case due to new requirements under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA). The veteran's claim for service connection for prostatitis remains pending and will be reconsidered.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current disability of light sensitive eyes and therefore, service connection for this condition is denied.

The Board denied service connection for a skin disorder and denied an increased disability evaluation for shell fragment wound to the left thigh. The veteran's claim for service connection was based on direct evidence, not presumptive exposure to herbicides.

The Board denied service connection for an eye disorder and increased ratings for carpal tunnel syndrome of the right and left wrists, finding that there was no evidence of a chronic acquired eye disorder or carpal tunnel syndrome related to military service.

The VA denied an increased evaluation for the veteran's pulmonary emphysema and did not grant entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for leukemia, finding that there was no direct or presumptive evidence linking his condition to his military service. The appeal is based on presumed exposure to Agent Orange during service.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of her husband's death, DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318, and eligibility for dependents' educational assistance (DEA) benefits due to a lack of evidence linking the veteran's cardiovascular disease to his military service.

The veteran was awarded improved pension benefits, but later received SSA disability payments that disqualified him for the pension. The overpayment of $14,294 was made based on his initial self-reporting of no income. Despite informing VA multiple times about his SSA benefits, he was still overpaid due to a failure in notification by VA. The veteran argues there is no fault and undue hardship would result from repayment.

The Board found that the veteran's pancreatitis was not incurred in or aggravated by service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has directed the RO to consider the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his upper back disability under the new criteria effective September 2003. The RO is also instructed to consider whether any secondary claims should be developed.

The Board has remanded the case due to ambiguity regarding whether the veteran currently has a cardiac disorder manifested by angina, and requests that VA obtain treatment reports from the Durham VAMC and a report of the cardiac catheterization.