Other conditions decisions — 2020

The Board has granted the appeal for the overpayment of VA compensation benefits in the amount of $3,419.80 due to a retroactive removal of T.C. from the Veteran's compensation benefits award due to her election of Chapter 35 education benefits. The appeal was denied for the overpayment debt of $3,077.74 due to concurrent payment of DEA Chapter 35 education benefits for T.C.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further action.

The Veteran's claim for educational benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve (MGIB-SR) Educational Assistance Program was denied because her eligibility period expired before she filed a claim, and no additional periods of active duty service extended her delimiting date.

The Board has determined that additional evidence is needed to fully and fairly consider the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical expenses incurred during his private hospitalization at The Villages Regional Hospital from March 10th-13th of 2015. This includes obtaining missing documents, VA treatment records, and private hospital records.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient examination regarding the etiology of the Veteran's vision loss and service connection.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the claim of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability. The Veteran's wife was granted substitution as the appellant in this matter due to the Veteran's death.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence submitted by the Veteran's spouse, linking his MDS to herbicide agent exposure during service. The decision is pending verification of whether the USS Porterfield was within Vietnam's territorial sea.

The Board has granted service connection for a fungal infection of the right great toenail, finding that it is at least as likely as not incurred in and causally related to active service.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to incomplete records and need for further development regarding the Veteran's service connection claim, including potential exposure to herbicide agents aboard USS Oriskany and possible Camp Lejeune service.

The Veteran's pension is already at the maximum allowable rate due to his zero income, and thus no additional benefits can be awarded. The claim is dismissed as moot.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease was denied as the earliest possible effective date is October 15, 2016 due to the liberalizing law and retroactive application.

The Board has dismissed the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the grant of special monthly compensation (SMC) as it lacks jurisdiction to decide this issue.

The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's death, and no jurisdiction remains for further consideration.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected left Achilles tendonitis, as the previous examinations did not adequately address functional loss during flare-ups.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for Non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma was received on September 30, 2015. The Board granted an earlier effective date of September 30, 2015, based on the presumption that exposure to contaminated water at Camp Lejeune caused his cancer.

The Veteran's appeal is dismissed due to his death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the cause of the Veteran's colon cancer and his service-connected condition. The VA will need to verify exposure to toxic substances, including herbicides, and review the etiology of the colon cancer.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to his death, and the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their passing away during the pendency of the appeal.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reinstate her apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits, as she is no longer eligible due to their divorce.