Other conditions decisions — 2019

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient medical examination and opinion regarding service connection for a skin condition other than tinea pedis. The Veteran needs to be examined by a dermatologist who must consider all relevant herbicide agents in rendering the nexus opinion.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for supravalvular pulmonic stenosis, finding that there was no evidence of a nexus between his current condition and his military service or any presumptive exposure to herbicides. The Board also found insufficient evidence to support secondary or aggravation claims.

The Veteran's claim for a refund of contributions to the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) is being remanded due to conflicting evidence regarding his participation in and contribution to VEAP. Clarification of the evidence and obtaining relevant records are required.

The Board found that the Appellant's character of discharge was other than honorable due to willful and persistent misconduct, which constitutes a bar to VA benefits.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for his right hip conditions are being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination.

The Board denied the appeal as the appellant's character of discharge is a bar to VA compensation benefits due to willful and persistent misconduct, not meeting the criteria for insanity or other exceptions.

The Veteran's appeals for increased ratings for pill-rolling tremors of the left and right hands have been withdrawn, resulting in their dismissal.

The Veteran's death certificate shows he was widowed, but the appellant is not a surviving spouse or child of the Veteran. The appellant did not provide sufficient evidence to establish that they were an executor of the Veteran’s estate and thus ineligible for accrued benefits.

The Veteran's appeal is dismissed due to his passing during the pendency of the appeal.

The Veteran's death did not result in any pending claims for accrued benefits, as no claim was filed or adjudicated prior to his death. Therefore, the surviving spouse is denied payment of accrued benefits.

The Veteran's Gastrointestinal stromal tumor (GIST) is granted as secondary to exposure to herbicidal agents due to service in the Republic of Vietnam.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration, including obtaining additional medical opinions regarding hearing loss.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse due to the invalidity of her marriage to the Veteran, which was initiated less than one month before his death.

The Veteran did not have active service for 90 days or more during a period of war, and therefore does not meet the eligibility criteria for VA death pension benefits. The Veteran's service was in the Merchant Marines, which is considered active duty only if it was oceangoing service. Since the Veteran's service was not oceangoing, he did not qualify for death pension benefits.

The appellant is not eligible for accrued benefits because she does not qualify as a child under VA regulations and did not provide evidence of expenses for her mother's last sickness or burial.

The Veteran's claims for a compensable rating for residuals of SFW to the right femoral artery, service connection for blood clots secondary to his leg wounds, and service connection for thyroid cancer are all remanded due to incomplete records and need for further examination.

The Board dismissed the appeals for rating in excess of 10 percent for right elbow epicondylitis, a compensable rating for right hand 5th metacarpal fracture, and a compensable rating for right eye pterygium.

The Board denied service connection for pulmonary fibrosis associated with asbestos exposure, finding that the evidence was insufficient to establish a 50% likelihood of a causal link between the condition and service.

The Board denied service connection for a urinary disorder, including benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH), as the evidence did not support a link between the Veteran's current condition and his active duty service.

The Veteran's death was not service connected, and the appellant is seeking higher burial benefits due to VA contract care. However, there is no evidence showing that the Veteran received VA contracted care at the time of his death.