Other conditions decisions — 2012

The Veteran does not have a chronic cardiac disability that was incurred in or aggravated by active service, and the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus with hypertension and erectile dysfunction have not been met.

The Veteran's claim for a higher rating for his herniated discs at L4-L5 and L5-S1 is being remanded due to insufficient evidence of the extent of functional loss and any objective neurological abnormality.

The RO reduced the Veteran's disability rating from 40 percent to 10 percent for recurrent disc herniation status post L5-S1 diskectomy, finding material improvement in his condition. The Board finds this reduction proper.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for non-malignant meningioma due to ionizing radiation exposure, finding that there was no reasonable possibility that the condition resulted from in-service radiation exposure.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the lack of a transcript from his April 2010 DRO hearing and because VA needs to consider the fact that he was adjudicated incompetent during part of the relevant period.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for helpless child benefits on behalf of his son H due to new and material evidence received since the November 1994 rating decision. The claim is now remanded for further development.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund due to lack of qualifying service, as determined by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).

The Board dismissed the appeal due to the death of the Appellant, as it has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim at this time.

The Board has ordered a remand to obtain additional service treatment records and arrange for the Veteran to be examined. The claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his service-connected left knee disability is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient opinion regarding whether the service-connected lumbar strain disability aggravates the bilateral hip disorder. The Veteran's claim for service connection is pending and will be reconsidered after further development.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have qualifying service to receive a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund, and thus denied his claim.

The Board has denied the appellant's claim for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to lack of qualifying service in the United States Armed Forces.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund as he did not meet the legal requirements for eligibility due to lack of verified service.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have qualifying service for a one-time payment from the 'Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund' and therefore denied the claim.

The Veteran's neurocognitive disorder is found to be service-connected as a result of his service in the Gulf War Theater, with no specific rating assigned and effective date not specified.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining VA treatment records and conducting a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's colon cancer is related to his in-service asbestos exposure. The claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for black fever was denied as there is no evidence of a current disability. The Board found that the available serology studies were all negative, and thus, there is no current diagnosis of leishmaniasis.

The Board found that the Veteran's currently diagnosed myopia, presbyopia, and incipient nuclear cataracts are not related to an in-service injury or disease. The residuals of a left eye injury were not chronic in service and did not result in any residual disability.

The Board found that the appellant's discharge from service was due to a felony conviction for second degree murder, and thus his character of discharge is dishonorable. The evidence does not support an insanity claim at the time of the incident.