Other conditions decisions — 2014

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left leg common peroneal neuralgia is related to an in-service injury sustained onboard the U.S.S. Epperson, and thus service connection is granted.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to insufficient medical opinion and missing VA treatment records.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for a benefits payment rate higher than 80 percent for educational assistance under Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) due to insufficient qualifying active duty service and lack of discharge due to a service-connected disability.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim of service connection for a left foot disorder, finding that the pre-existing condition did not clearly and unmistakably undergo an increase in severity during service.

The Board finds that the Veteran's musculoskeletal problems are not related to service, including herbicide exposure. Arthritis of the spine was also not shown or noted within one year of separation from active duty.

The Board found that the Veteran's death was not caused by or a result of his service-connected psychiatric disability, and thus denied the claim for service connection for cause of death.

The Veteran's B-cell lymphoma, presumed to be due to herbicide exposure during service in Thailand, is granted for accrued benefits purposes. The cause of the Veteran's death from B-cell lymphoma is also granted.

The Veteran's unspecified neurocognitive disorder has been granted an initial rating of 50 percent effective January 23, 2006. The RO found that the disability manifested by occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks.

The Veteran is seeking an increased rating for his service-connected psychophysiological gastrointestinal reaction and a TDIU. The case is being remanded to obtain updated clinical records, arrange for the Veteran to undergo a VA examination, and re-adjudicate both claims.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for dermatophytosis of the feet was denied, and her TDIU on an extraschedular basis is also denied.

The Veteran's claims for temporary total evaluations under 38 C.F.R. § 4.29 and § 4.30 for pterygium, left eye, are denied as the evidence does not support a finding that he required hospital treatment or observation in excess of 21 days or necessitated convalescence.

The Veteran's service is not considered active duty due to the short duration of his military service. As a result, he does not meet the eligibility criteria for non-service-connected pension benefits.

The Veteran's disability of the hands is manifested by subjective complaints of pain, with occasional incapacitating exacerbations including weakness, pain and increased fatigability and hand cramps, but no evidence of limited motion in either hand. The criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent disabling have not been met.

The Board has decided to remand the Veteran's claims for a bilateral leg rash and bilateral toenail disorder due to the need for additional development, including VA examinations.

The Veteran died from intracranial hemorrhage and there is no evidence of service connection for his death. The claim for burial benefits was denied as the Veteran did not die while in a VA facility or under proper authorization.

The Board has remanded the case due to an allegation of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a previous rating decision, which denied service connection for a gynecological disability. The issue of whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen the claim is now pending.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining private medical records and providing a supplemental opinion from the examiner who conducted his December 2009 VA examination.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the award of a TDIU is dismissed as there is no such claim.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim to reopen his entitlement to basic eligibility for improved pension benefits, finding that new and material evidence did not raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim.