Loading decisions…
Loading decisions…
7,313 vetted Board decisions in 2015.
The Veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hand tremors is being remanded due to the need for additional development, including scheduling a Travel Board hearing.
The Board has determined that the reduction of the appellant's death pension benefits from January 1, 2011 to December 1, 2011 was proper due to an increase in income and no medical expenses for 2011.
The Veteran's claim for service connection for a skin disability is being remanded due to the need for verification of in-service chemical exposure and further examination if such exposure is confirmed.
The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred on July 13, 2014 at Munroe Regional Medical Center in Ocala, Florida is denied as he has a health-plan contract through Medicare.
The Veteran's claim for an educational benefit level in excess of 50 percent under the Post-9/11 GI Bill was denied as his period of service counted for purposes of the Loan Repayment Program (LRP) did not qualify for creditable active duty service.
The Veteran's appeal is denied as he did not meet the eligibility criteria for Chapter 30 educational assistance benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 3011(a)(1)(B) due to his discharge being for alcohol rehabilitation failure.
The Veteran's VA benefits were terminated from May 6, 2002 to August 13, 2002 due to an outstanding felony warrant. The Board found that the termination was not valid as the Veteran did not flee to avoid prosecution.
For the period from July 1, 2007 to April 30, 2008, the Veteran's urticaria did not meet the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent.,Since May 1, 2008, the Veteran's urticaria has met the criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent.
The Veteran withdrew the appeal of the propriety of calculations of bilateral factor and total combined disability rating effective November 26, 2007.
The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred at a private facility in Valdosta, Georgia on May 3, 2009 was denied as the Veteran had coverage under a health-plan contract and Medicare provided payments towards his treatment.
The Veteran's hallux limitus of each great toe has not been found to meet or approximate the criteria for a higher evaluation under applicable rating criteria.
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable rating for residuals of basal cell carcinoma is being remanded due to inadequate examination and the need for extraschedular consideration.
The Veteran's claim for additional monetary benefits due to a dependent child's school attendance from August 2003 to May 2009 is denied as VA had not received the required claims within one year of his daughter's 18th birthday and subsequent commencement of her course of instruction.
The Veteran's service-connected second degree AV block with status post dual chamber pacemaker implantation is currently evaluated at 30 percent, and the evidence does not support a higher evaluation.
The Board has remanded the case for further evidentiary development, including scheduling a VA examination to determine the impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his employability.
The Veteran's appeal is remanded to determine if it is factually ascertainable that he was unable to secure or follow substantially gainful employment as a result of his service-connected disabilities between April 26, 2009 and May 1, 2010.
The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration, including seeking verification of service from the relevant service department.
The Board found that the Veteran's right leg disability is not related to service or a service-connected condition, and thus denied his claim for service connection.
The Veteran died of systemic amyloidosis, presumed to be caused by herbicide exposure in Vietnam. The appellant is not eligible for DEA benefits as she turned 26 before the effective date of presumptive service connection.
The Veteran's cause of death was not service-connected, and the Appellant is therefore denied DIC benefits.
← Back to Other conditions overview
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.