Other conditions decisions — 2009

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating and earlier effective date for service-connected left foot fracture, 5th metatarsal was denied. The Board found that a higher rating is not warranted due to the nature of his disability, which is characterized as no more than moderate foot injury under Diagnostic Code 5284. An earlier effective date is also denied.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a colon disorder is denied as there is no current chronic colon disability.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a cold weather injury to the hands and feet is denied as there is no current disability attributable to such an injury. The Veteran's PTSD is rated at 30 percent, effective June 15, 2007.

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a bilateral elbow disability or residuals of an in-service ligament tear, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for basic eligibility for VA nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied as he does not have qualifying military service.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service records are necessary to decide her eligibility for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38. The RO is instructed to request evidence from the Veteran regarding a $1200 pay reduction for educational purposes and obtain all of the Veteran's service records.

The Board has ordered a remand due to the need for additional development, including an examination and opinion regarding whether any current cardiovascular disability is related to service.

The Veteran's initial compensable evaluation for venereal warts was denied. The Board found that the objective and competent medical evidence did not show more than slight, if any, recurrent itching from service-connected venereal warts.

The Board has remanded the case to further consider the Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his left knee disability, due to insufficient consideration of the July 2006 hearing testimony and the need for additional VA examination. The Veteran must be provided with an appropriate notification letter regarding increased ratings.

The Veteran's vocational rehabilitation program was discontinued due to his refusal to participate in an Individual Employment Assistance Plan and because he had not progressed. The Board has determined that there is conflicting evidence regarding the feasibility of achieving a college degree for social work employment.

The Veteran's claim for a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities is being remanded for further development and consideration.

The Veteran's strokes were not incurred or aggravated in service, may not be presumed to have been incurred in service, and are not proximately due to his already service-connected NHL.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn due to the assignment of a total rating based on other service-connected disability and his age, making further pursuit of this claim wasteful.

The Veteran's right shoulder disability is rated at 30 percent since October 22, 1997 and the Board has granted this higher rating.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been presented to reopen the claim of service connection for double vision, as the additional evidence does not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.

The Veteran's stepson does not meet the criteria of a 'child of the Veteran' for VA benefit purposes, and thus his claim is denied.

The Veteran's claim of compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for dental disability due to VA medical treatment is being remanded for further development.

The Board finds that the appellant's refractory anemia is not caused by the radiation therapy he received in January 1996 for prostate cancer metastases, and thus compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is denied.

The Veteran's PTSD with alcohol dependence is currently rated at 50 percent, and the Board finds that an evaluation in excess of this rating is not warranted.

The Board has determined that the appellant's deceased husband had no service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces during World War II. As such, he is not considered a 'veteran' for purposes of entitlement to VA benefits and the claim must be denied.