Other conditions decisions — 2018

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the etiology of the Veteran's bilateral cataracts, specifically whether they are related to his in-service symptoms and use of Prednisone.

The Board denied the Veteran's requests for earlier effective dates for service connection and special monthly compensation. The effective date for service connection was set at March 6, 2000, while the effective date for housebound status was May 2, 2014.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's left eye disorder, including her service treatment records and reports of in-service injuries. The Veteran is not granted service connection for a left eye disorder at this time.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient consideration of recent private treatment records that show a 30+ year history of foot problems, including Morton's neuroma.

The Board denied service connection for the Veteran's heart disease, finding that it did not manifest to a compensable degree within one year of separation from service and was not otherwise etiologically related to his service.

The Veteran's peptic ulcer disease is currently rated at 20 percent, but the Board finds that it does not meet the criteria for a higher rating as there are no symptoms of anemia or recurrent incapacitating episodes.

The Veteran's son, who was not diagnosed with spina bifida and did not have a biological mother who served in Vietnam, is denied benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 1805 for spina bifida.

The Board denied the overpayment debts of VA educational benefits as they were not validly created due to the Veteran's ineligibility for transferring Chapter 33 benefits to his school-aged daughter.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection as his subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous did not manifest during active service and there is no indication that it is otherwise related to his military service, including Agent Orange exposure.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient examination findings and requests for additional information.

The Board found the Veteran's discharge under conditions other than honorable constitutes a bar to VA benefits, as there were no compelling circumstances to justify his prolonged absence without official leave (AWOL). The claim for service connection is denied.

The Veteran's cold injury residuals of the right and left feet are currently rated at 20 percent, but a higher rating is not warranted as there is no evidence of tissue loss, nail abnormalities, color changes, locally impaired sensation, or hyperhidrosis.

The Board has decided to remand the claims of service connection for eye disorder, prostate disorder, and urinary disorder due to the need for further examination and opinion regarding the etiology of these conditions.

The Veteran's death was attributed to hypertensive cardiovascular disease with hyperlipidemia. The Board has decided that remand is necessary to determine the cause of his death and whether service connection can be established for any conditions.

The appeal for DIC and accrued benefits as the surviving spouse of the Veteran is denied due to not meeting eligibility criteria.

The claim for service connection for systemic lupus erythematosus (lupus) is reopened and granted. The appeal is also granted for the issues of service connection for nephritis and TDIU, as they are inextricably intertwined with the reopening of the lupus claim.

The Veteran's attorney has withdrawn the appeal for an increased rating in excess of 10 percent for vestigia base of chin, due to mandible fracture. The appeal is dismissed.

The Veteran withdrew his claims concerning earlier effective dates for TDIU and DEA.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral myelopathy of the upper and lower extremities is related to his service, specifically exposure to Agent Orange during his time in Vietnam. As such, service connection for these conditions is granted.

The Board has remanded the case due to a failure to discuss VA's duty to assist in the context of a February 2011 VA medical opinion regarding the cause of death.