Other conditions decisions — 2007

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for decreased vision of the right eye, as the additional evidence received does not suggest any additional disability due to VA surgery in March 1995.

The Board has determined that the veteran's OCD is related to his active duty service and grants service connection for this condition.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected benign soft tissue fat necrosis of the left upper abdominal quadrant is not more than moderately disabling, warranting a 10 percent evaluation.

The Board has granted a 10% evaluation for shell fragment wounds of the right shin, but denied an increased rating for shell fragment wounds of the chin.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased disability rating for his service-connected shell fragment wound residuals and denied service connection for multiple tumors, including those claimed as secondary to herbicide exposure. The appeal was dismissed.

The Board found that the veteran's cause of death was not caused by or substantially contributed to by a disability incurred in service, and denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development due to incomplete information in the veteran's claims file.

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

The Board found that the veteran's nasopharyngeal cancer was not incurred in or aggravated by his active service, and may not be presumed to have been so incurred or aggravated due to Agent Orange exposure. The other issues regarding bilateral ear disability and dry mouth were also denied.

The veteran's claim for non-service connected pension is remanded due to the lack of current income data. The RO must request updated information from the veteran and SSA.

The Board has determined that the veteran's sleep disorder is not service-connected due to lack of evidence showing a nexus between his current condition and active military service. The other claimed conditions are also denied as there is no direct evidence linking them to service.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected cold injury residuals of both lower extremities, finding that the evidence does not warrant a rating in excess of 30%.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a chronic right leg disability, an ear disorder (claimed as dizziness), and residuals of cerebral hemorrhage. The Board found no current disabilities related to these conditions, and there is insufficient evidence linking any claimed disabilities to military service.

The Board denied service connection for an ear disorder, a skin disorder, and PTSD. The veteran's ear disorder was not related to his service, while the skin disorder did not manifest until after 1999. There is no evidence linking the current conditions to Agent Orange exposure or any other in-service event.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for residuals of dental trauma. The veteran experienced dental trauma during active duty, resulting in the loss of his five front teeth. As a result, the Board finds that service connection is warranted for these residuals.

The Board found that the appellant knowingly misrepresented his membership in the Bureau of Constabulary (B.C.) and Philippine Constabulary (P.C.), leading to a forfeiture of all rights, claims, and benefits under VA laws.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for service connection for alpha-1 antitrypsin deficiency (A1AD) as there was no evidence of a pre-existing condition that worsened during service, and current A1AD is not related to military service.

The Board has found that a VA examination is needed to determine if the veteran has current residuals of cold injury due to in-service exposure. The case is REMANDED for this purpose.

The Board denied the appellant's application to reopen his claim of legal entitlement to VA benefits, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted.

The Board found that the claimant was not recognized as the veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes due to a lack of continuous cohabitation since their marriage until the veteran's death.