Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his left thumb and right knee disabilities have been denied. The Board found that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating under any applicable diagnostic codes.

The Veteran's service-connected dermatophytosis of the feet has been inactive and not affecting at least 5% of his entire body or exposed areas, thus he does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating.

The Veteran's claims for respiratory disorder, peripheral neuropathy of the upper and lower extremities, hypertension, low back condition, shoulder condition, and disability residual to inoculations received during service were denied as there is no evidence of a current disability or etiological link to service.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient information on how the $2,738.00 overpayment was calculated and the amount of military retirement pay during the relevant period.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including a VA examination and consideration of the Veteran's claim for service connection for complex regional pain syndrome, type II, of the right lower extremity.

The Board has remanded the case for further development regarding the creation and waiver of an overpayment of VA compensation benefits. The Veteran is disputing the amount owed, and the RO must verify how payments were made to him between December 1, 2005, and May 30, 2006.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for additional development and examination, particularly regarding his service connection claim for a vein disability in the lower extremities. The issues of temporary evaluation and TDIU are also deferred until further notice.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for dependency allowance was granted, with the effective date set at February 1, 2005.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and likely etiology of any current right foot and ankle disorder.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded to obtain outstanding VA treatment records and a medical opinion regarding his employment status prior to March 31, 2009. The claim will be readjudicated based on the new evidence.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service-connected neurally mediated syncope requires additional development due to incomplete medical records and inadequate opinions from previous VA examinations.

The Board denied the claim for VA compensation benefits for birth defects of a child born to a Vietnam Veteran because there is no evidence that the appellant has spina bifida, which is required for such benefits.

The evidence does not support an evaluation greater than 20 percent for the Veteran's L5-S1 injury postoperative due to lack of incapacitating episodes or significant limitation of motion.

The Veteran claims service connection for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) as due to ionizing radiation exposure during his service aboard the U.S.S. Groton submarine. The Board acknowledges that there was no reasonable possibility of a link between the Veteran's AML and in-service radiation exposure, based on the dose estimate provided by the Under Secretary for Health. However, further clarification is needed regarding the Veteran's alleged exposure to ionizing radiation during a fire incident aboard the U.S.S. Groton submarine.

The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine the extent of the Veteran's in-service exposure to ionizing radiation and whether his squamous cell carcinoma of the left tonsil with post-operative residuals is related to such exposure. The case will be remanded for this purpose.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to the death of the appellant, and thus the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.

The appellant is not recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of establishing eligibility for DIC, death pension, and accrued benefits due to her remarriage after the Veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for additional development, including obtaining SSA records and ensuring proper consideration of the Veteran's TDIU claim.

The Board found that a chronic eye disability did not manifest in active service and is not otherwise etiologically related to such service. The Veteran's current impaired vision resulting from an August 2000 gunshot wound does not meet the criteria for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill was denied as she did not meet the eligibility requirements due to her character of discharge from service being 'Under Honorable Conditions (General)' and not an 'Honorable Discharge'. Additionally, there were no medical reasons preventing her from initiating or completing a program of education within her delimiting period.