Other conditions decisions — 2019

The appellant was denied recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for VA compensation and pension benefits due to her divorce from the Veteran prior to his death, which means she did not meet the legal requirements for being considered a surviving spouse.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to missing private medical records, particularly those from Millennium Home Health related to home health and skilled nursing care for the Veteran's feet. The VA will attempt to obtain these records and consider their impact on the evaluation of the service-connected disability.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and opinion regarding his left calcaneus fracture residuals, as well as a referral of the issue of secondary service connection for a right knee condition.

The Veteran's daughter is denied retroactive payments for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits because she did not meet the age requirements and her application was received after one year of commencing an educational program.

The veteran's active duty service was less than the required 24 months, and he did not meet other exceptions to this rule. Therefore, his claim for VA home loan guaranty benefits is denied.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine if the Veteran's kidney disorder was aggravated by his periods of service, and whether it clearly and unmistakably pre-existed those periods.

The Board has granted service connection for multiple myeloma, finding it at least as likely as not due to herbicide exposure while stationed in Thailand.

The Board denied service connection for a bilateral leg condition, bilateral foot condition, and nerve condition. The Veteran's current conditions were not found to be related to his active service or any service-connected disabilities.,Specifically, the VA examiners concluded that the Veteran’s patellofemoral tendinopathy, claw toes, and peripheral neuropathy did not have their onset in service or as a result of his service-connected bilateral feet deteriorated digital deformities.

The Board has decided to remand the cases for further development due to incomplete opinions regarding service connection and rating of heart disability.

The Veteran's surviving spouse did not have any pending claims for accrued benefits at the time of her death, and there were no unpaid VA benefits due to her. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to accrued benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's spouse's claim for nonservice-connected death pension benefits due to her income exceeding the maximum annual pension rates.

The Board denied an earlier effective date for the grant of nonservice-connected pension benefits prior to November 14, 2013. The Veteran's initial claim was denied in November 2010 and a subsequent informal claim was submitted on November 14, 2013. Since no NOD was filed within one year, the initial denial became final. As a new claim, the effective date of November 14, 2013 was assigned.

The Veteran's service is not considered wartime service, and thus does not meet the requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Veteran's application for educational assistance benefits was denied because the training period occurred more than one year before he filed his application.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's character of discharge for his period of service from January 16, 1983 through September 6, 1984 was dishonorable and a bar to VA benefits.

The Veteran's death pension and DIC benefits claim is denied because the Appellant, who was not married to the Veteran at the time of his death, cannot be recognized as his surviving spouse for VA purposes.

The appeal has been dismissed because the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal and thus, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the Veteran's skin condition and a need for clarification on his service connection theory.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for disability compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for residuals of corrective bilateral lower eyelid surgery due to VA medical treatment in May 2011, finding that the additional disability was not caused by negligence or fault on the part of VA.

The appeal is being remanded for further development, including determining the Appellant's eligibility to substitute in place of the Veteran and re-adjudicating the service connection claims.