Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board denied the appeal as the appellant's character of discharge is dishonorable and therefore a bar to VA benefits.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for inclusion body myositis is being remanded due to the lack of a response from the Chemical Biological Warfare database and outstanding private treatment records.

The Veteran's eligibility to receive educational assistance benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill is granted due to his active duty service, and he has properly executed an irrevocable election of Chapter 33 or Post-9/11 GI Bill benefits in lieu of Chapter 30 benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate examination reports and the need for updated VA treatment records. The Veteran's bilateral eye disorder is being reviewed again, with a focus on whether it is caused or aggravated by his service-connected hypertension.

The Veteran's death was not due to a disease for which presumptive service connection has been established based on exposure to herbicide agents. The Board is remanded to obtain a legible copy of the Veteran’s death certificate and any terminal hospitalization records.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to assess his current employment status due to service-connected urethral stricture.

The Board has denied service connection for Lewy Body dementia due to lack of a causal relationship with service or exposure, but remanded the issue of service connection for sleep disorder as new evidence was submitted. The Veteran's claim for sleep disorder is pending and will be reviewed again.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to uncertainty about whether the Appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse. The VA needs to investigate and provide evidence regarding any potential divorce between the couple at the time of the Veteran's death.

The Board has restored a 10 percent disability rating for the Veteran's service-connected bilateral onychomycosis, which had been reduced to zero percent. The reduction was improper as there was no evidence of sustained improvement in the condition.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating and the reduction in his disability rating from 10 percent to zero percent are both being remanded due to procedural errors. The Veteran will need a new VA examination, and he may also receive a supplemental statement of the case if his appeal is timely perfected.

The Board finds that additional development is needed to establish the circumstances surrounding the Veteran's discharge from service in June 2013.

The Veteran's claim of entitlement to a TDIU on an extraschedular basis from August 2000 to November 20, 2014 was denied by the Director. The matter is REMANDED for additional development including obtaining employment and income information.

The Veteran's daughter is eligible for retroactive Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code from May 27, 2009.

The Board has denied the claim for service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 as the Veteran's bilateral leg amputation was not due to faulty VA care, and no fault is found on the part of the VA.

The Board denied the Veteran's request for on-the-job training benefits under Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) for United States Border Patrol training from February 2016 to February 2017 because he was already qualified by training and experience for his job.

The Veteran's service-connected right foot conditions have been rated as noncompensable. The Board has granted a compensable rating of 10% for the right foot 5th metatarsal bunion, status post bunionectomy, and denied entitlement to higher ratings for the other two service-connected conditions.

The Board has remanded the case due to errors in determining that VA's duty to assist had been met. The Veteran is required to provide information about his private medical treatment and records from VA facilities.

The Board has determined that the issue of apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits to the appellant is not ripe for appellate review due to procedural issues. The case involves a simultaneously contested claim and requires full compliance with special procedural regulations.

The Veteran's initial claim for an increased rating for her service-connected left hip bursitis is being remanded due to insufficient examination findings and the need for additional information regarding functional loss during flare-ups.

The Veteran's surviving spouse is recognized for VA benefits purposes due to living together as husband and wife under a common law marriage, despite the lack of legal recognition in Missouri and Illinois.