Other conditions decisions — 2015

The Board has decided to remand the case for a Travel Board hearing at the RO in Waco, Texas due to the Appellant not receiving proper notice of her scheduled hearing.

The Veteran's spouse did not have a claim pending at the time of her death and was not due any unpaid monetary benefits, thus accrued benefits are denied. The Appellant's claim for burial benefits is also denied as there are no applicable laws or regulations that confer such a benefit on behalf of the Veteran's spouse.

The Veteran's claim for a cardiovascular disability, including atrial fibrillation and non-ischemic cardiomyopathy with congestive heart failure, is being remanded due to the need for an opinion regarding potential service connection based on exposure to herbicides. The current rating and effective date are not addressed in this decision.

The Board found that the appellant and the Veteran did not continuously cohabitate from the date of their marriage until the Veteran's death, due to the fault of the appellant. Therefore, she is not recognized as the surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes.

The Board found that the appellant's character of discharge was under other than honorable conditions due to willful and persistent misconduct, which constitutes a bar to VA benefits except for health care.

The Board has denied the reopening of a claim for service connection for the cause of death due to lymphoma, finding that new and material evidence was not received within one year of the prior final denial.

The Veteran does not have a qualifying additional disability (residuals of excision of a right supraclavicular lipoma) as a result of the October 14, 2005 VA surgery and there is no evidence to support that the VA's care or treatment caused her additional disability.

The Board has dismissed the claim due to the failure of a timely substantive appeal, as the VA Form 9 was received more than one year after the initial decision and no extension request was made.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to his failure to report for a scheduled hearing in Washington, D.C. and the need to schedule a videoconference hearing instead.

The Veteran's 40 days of service with the Army National Guard from September 26, 2005 through November 4, 2005 qualify as active duty service. The Veteran has met the requirements for eligibility under 38 U.S.C.A. Chapter 33 (the Post-9/11 GI Bill).

The Board has determined that the appellant's left eye vision loss is not a disability for which VA compensation is payable, and thus service connection cannot be granted.

The Board has determined that the appellant and the Veteran did not meet the requirements for a common law marriage under South Carolina law, and therefore cannot be recognized as having a valid 'marriage' for purposes of receiving VA death benefits.

The Board has determined that the Veteran developed verruca vulgaris of both feet during his active service, and thus service connection is granted.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including scheduling VA examinations and obtaining additional medical records.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to the need for further adjudication regarding the validity of the underlying debt and overpayment.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Veteran's left leg disability was rated at 40 percent prior to July 14, 2011. From July 14, 2011, the rating remained at 40 percent.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral eye disability warrants a 10 percent rating, but no higher, as it is manifested by active pathology involving pain and discomfort.

The Board has remanded the case to the AOJ for further development due to a lack of verification from the relevant service department regarding F.H.'s alleged service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including the recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces.

The case is being remanded for further examination and opinion regarding the Veteran's claim of secondary service connection for a skin disorder. The examiner should clarify whether hidradenitis existed prior to service and if so, whether it was aggravated during service.