Other conditions decisions — 2010

The appeal has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their appeal prior to a decision being made.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for a waiver of overpayment of educational benefits, finding that the appellant was primarily at fault in creating the overpayment and that recovery would not create undue hardship or defeat the purpose of his VA benefits. The decision also noted that the appellant had unjustly enriched herself by receiving higher education benefits than she was entitled to.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected Crohn's disease and its impact on his employability.

The Veteran's appeal involves three separate issues regarding her service-connected spinal stenosis at L4-5. The Board has determined that additional development is needed to properly assess the current nature and extent of her disability, including any associated neurological impairment.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a low back disability, diabetes mellitus, hepatitis, and skin cancer due to lack of new and material evidence. The previous decisions denying these claims are final.

The Board found that the appellant's character of discharge was a bar to VA benefits due to his convictions for second degree burglary, which constitute crimes of moral turpitude.

The Board has received a withdrawal of the appeal for nonservice-connected death pension benefits.

The Veteran's service connection claim for a back disability is granted as his current back pain is at least as likely as not caused by or as a result of the injury he sustained during active duty for training in June 1995.

The Board denied the appellant's request for a waiver of overpayment of DIC benefits due to her failure to notify VA of her remarriage, which resulted in an overpayment. The Board found that the fault was with the appellant and not VA, and recovery would not create undue hardship or defeat the purpose of the compensation program.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim of entitlement to compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. � 1151 for additional disability of the neck and back resulting from surgery performed by the Department of Veterans Affairs, but the case is being remanded due to insufficient development.

The Veteran is not entitled to an earlier effective date for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits because he did not meet the criteria for basic eligibility prior to March 16, 2005.

The Board granted an effective date of May 19, 1992 for the grant of service connection for multiple keratosis and sun damage. The Veteran's claim was reopened based on declassified military records confirming exposure to mustard agents or Lewisite during his naval service.

The Veteran's right hip strain was initially rated noncompensable prior to October 21, 2009. From that date onwards, she is now rated at 10 percent disabling.

The Veteran's residuals of a fractured left fibula do not meet the criteria for an increased rating beyond 10 percent, as his disability does not result in moderate knee or ankle disability.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for lipomatosis is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and providing proper notice under 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a).

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for further development of evidence, including a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's current right foot injury is related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the claims for additional development due to insufficient evidence regarding service connection for head injury and back injury. The Veteran is required to provide updated notice of what evidence has been received and not received by VA, as well as who has the duty to request evidence.

The Veteran's benefits are currently apportioned to the appellant for their minor child J.S.D. in the amount of $200 per month, effective June 1, 2007. The Board denied a higher apportionment as it would create undue hardship on the Veteran.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including obtaining a medical opinion regarding whether any current spine disorder is related to active military service.

The Board found no additional disability resulting from the circumcision and determined that there was no negligence or improper treatment by VA, thus denying compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.