Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Veteran's lung disability, including as due to asbestos exposure, is being remanded for further development and examination.

The Board found that the Veteran's overpayment was valid and not due to his fault. However, recovery of the remaining $12,145.65 would cause undue hardship as it could be paid off in less than five years with minimal impact on the Veteran's finances. The decision also noted that reliance on VA benefits resulted in relinquishment of a valuable right or incurrence of a legal obligation.

The Veteran's service connection for teeth erosion was restored, effective from February 1, 2009. The RO is directed to assign a compensable rating and consider whether staged ratings are warranted.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and inadequate examination, requiring further development including obtaining private treatment records and scheduling a VA examination with an oncologist.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a VA examination and additional development of records. The case will be reconsidered after these steps are completed.

The Veteran's active service does not meet the criteria for VA death pension benefits.

The appellant's service with the Merchant Marines was after August 15, 1945, and he is not eligible for VA compensation or pension benefits.

The Veteran's right great toe arthritis has been rated at 20 percent disabling since July 7, 2008. The most recent VA examination in January 2011 showed moderate limitation of motion and no evidence of severe impairment.

The Board found that the appellant's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment debt of VA educational benefits in the amount of $7,877.55 was timely filed and the appeal as to this issue is allowed. The validity of the overpayment of VA educational benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill in the amount of $7,877.55 is also found valid.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) due to insufficient evidence regarding his active duty service period. The AOJ will verify the Veteran's service periods with the appropriate service department and then readjudicate the claim for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33.

The Veteran's claim for compensation under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 is being remanded due to insufficient evidence in order to properly adjudicate the claim, specifically a medical opinion.

The Board found no current neurological disorders of the upper or lower extremities and concluded that any such conditions are not related to service-connected spine disabilities.

The Board has remanded the case for an addendum opinion from a VA examiner to address whether the Veteran's bilateral foot condition is related to or caused by his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II and/or peripheral neuropathy of the bilateral lower extremities.

The Board granted an earlier effective date of May 5, 2007 for the grant of service connection for a mood disorder.

The Board has denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for polymyositis, finding that there is no causal relationship between his current diagnosis and active duty service.

The Board found that the apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits, effective from October 2009, was not improper and denied the Veteran's appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate reasons and bases in concluding that VA had met its duties to assist and notify the claimant. The appellant was not advised of alternative means to obtain service treatment records, which were destroyed in a fire.

The Board has determined that the submitted evidence is not new and material, thus denying the appellant's petition to reopen his claim for nonservice-connected VA pension benefits.

The Board has determined that a Statement of the Case (SOC) was not issued for the appellant's disagreement with the effective date of the apportionment award. The case is therefore being remanded to issue an SOC and ensure proper contested claim procedures are followed.

The Board found that the preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran's left lower extremity disorder is related to his active service or his service-connected right lower extremity disability, and therefore denied the claim for service connection.