Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Veteran's income exceeded the maximum annual pension rate for the period from February 22, 2007 to September 10, 2008. Therefore, he is not entitled to nonservice-connected disability pension benefits during this time.

The Board has determined that the appellant did not have service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces. Therefore, they are not eligible for benefits from the FVEC Fund.

The Board finds that the Veteran's skin disorder did not begin in service and is not otherwise related to his military service. The claim for secondary service connection for glaucoma due to diabetes is also denied.

The Veteran does not have a disability of the right elbow or left elbow that is attributable to service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral deep venous insufficiency is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including scheduling a VA examination and obtaining a supplemental opinion.

The Veteran's death was due to non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, which is presumed service-connected based on herbicide exposure. The effective date for dependency and indemnity compensation benefits is set at the date of his death.

The Veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for chronic pulmonary emboli associated with thrombophlebitis of the left leg and varicose veins was denied as there is no evidence of cor pulmonale, pulmonary hypertension, or right ventricular hypertrophy. The 60 percent rating assigned following inferior vena cava surgery without evidence of pulmonary hypertension or right ventricular dysfunction remains in effect.

The Board found clear and unmistakable error in the August 8, 1975 rating decision that granted service connection for residuals of a fractured L2 vertebra. The Veteran was entitled to an additional 10 percent rating based on muscle spasm with an additional 10 percent rating based on deformity of a vertebral body.

The Board is remanding the case for additional development, including obtaining any available records documenting periods of temporary duty in Vietnam that may have occurred during the Veteran's service.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a stress fracture in the right leg has been denied as there is no current evidence of any residual disability. The Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis related to his in-service stress fracture.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development of service medical records and private treatment records from Drs. Baez and Espinosa.

The Veteran's appeal for a temporary total evaluation due to treatment for a service-connected or other condition subject to compensation has been withdrawn.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Methodist Medical Center on November 16, 2008 was denied because VA facilities were deemed feasibly available to provide the necessary care.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of VA benefits, finding that there was continuous cohabitation from the date of marriage until the death of the Veteran.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for further examination and opinion regarding his claimed cardiovascular and cerebrovascular disorders, including whether they are related to service or within a year of separation.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain additional medical records and an examination, in order to determine if his current hernias are related to the October 2007 VA colonoscopy and emergency surgery. The claim will be reconsidered based on this new evidence.

The Board found that the December 1964 rating decision misapplied the law and granted service connection for chronic mastoiditis, chronic otitis media, and perforation of tympanic membrane of the right ear as incurred in active military service.

The Veteran's claim for more than 20 months of educational assistance benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (Chapter 30) is denied as he did not complete his obligated period of service due to a service-connected disability, and thus is only entitled to one month of benefits per month of active duty served.

The Board finds that the Veteran's spouse is not estranged from him, and thus her income should be counted for purposes of calculating his pension benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional information regarding the Veteran's income, assets, and expenses. The appellant is seeking apportionment of the Veteran's disability compensation benefits on behalf of herself and her child.