Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional records related to the Appellant's application to upgrade his character of service discharge from the Department of the Army.

The Veteran's claim for a higher level of payment of Chapter 33 educational assistance benefits was denied as the law does not support such a claim. The Veteran served at least 12 months, but less than 18 months, of creditable active duty service (i.e., 365-544 days) after September 10, 2001, and is therefore entitled to only 60 percent of the maximum rate of Chapter 33 educational assistance benefits.

The Veteran's initial rating for his left orbital fracture residuals is being remanded due to outstanding VA treatment records and the need for a new examination.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to issues with the validity of the debt for overpayment of VRAP benefits and to provide the Veteran's appointed representative, Missouri Veterans Commission, an opportunity to review the claims file.

The Veteran's claims for higher ratings for varicose veins and lipodermasclerosis, as well as her TDIU claim, are being remanded due to the need for additional examinations and the submission of outstanding VA treatment records.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete service personnel records and missing service treatment records, which may contain information regarding the Veteran's in-service benzene exposure. The Appellant must be provided with notice of alternate evidence she can submit if her STRs are unavailable.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and the need for a TDIU opinion regarding the impact of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities on his occupational functioning.

The Board found that the Appellant's discharge from service was due to an offense involving moral turpitude and thus barred him from receiving VA benefits.

The Board found that the Appellant's discharge was due to willful and persistent misconduct, not insanity or service connection issues. The appeal is denied.

The Board has reopened the Veteran's claim for service connection for emphysema and remanded it for further development. The cause of death is also remanded due to its interrelatedness with the emphysema claim.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection of prostatitis, finding no clear and unmistakable error in previous decisions and that he did not file a valid claim to reopen until April 4, 2008.

The Board has ordered a remand due to insufficient detail in the VA examinations and the need for an addendum opinion regarding whether the remaining right kidney causes generalized poor health.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for further development and examination to determine if his lung disability (claimed as a half lung, right side) and cardiac disability (claimed as an enlarged heart) are related to service.

The Board found that the Veteran's brucellosis had improved and was no longer active, leading to a reduction from a 100% rating to a 20% rating effective March 1, 2017. The decision is based on medical evidence showing improvement in symptoms.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the initial rating for residuals of larynx cancer, so the case is dismissed.

The Veteran's claims for cervical spine disorder, lumbar strain with thoracic degenerative joint disease and intervertebral disc syndrome, patellar tendon repair and patellar fracture of the right knee, lateral collateral ligament laxity of the right knee, limitation of extension of the right knee, patellar tendon repair of the left knee, and limitation of extension of the left knee are being remanded for further development.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient examination and lack of clear and unmistakable evidence regarding pre-service aggravation. The Veteran's gastrointestinal disorder, including Barrett’s esophagus, dysphasia, and esophageal stricture, is presumed to have existed prior to service.

The Veteran's medical expenses at a private hospital were denied because the nearest VA facility was feasibly available and his situation did not meet the criteria for emergency treatment.

The Board has remanded the case due to issues related to a TDIU claim, and no compensable evaluation for the service-connected right little finger fracture residuals is granted.

The Veteran's appeal of the claim for a clothing allowance for calendar year 2013 has been dismissed as she withdrew her appeal.