Other conditions decisions — 2024

The Veteran's appeal regarding the reduction of special apportionment sent to his minor children was dismissed due to an untimely Notice of Disagreement (NOD). The NOD was not received within 60 days from the notification letter, which restored full compensation benefits for the period of incarceration.

The Veteran's request to extend the delimiting date for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 33 (Post-9/11 GI Bill) was denied as there is no evidence of circumstances that would permit extension.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a pre-decisional duty to assist error, requiring an examination and opinion regarding the nature and likely cause of the Veteran's insomnia, as well as whether it is related to service or caused by any service-connected disability.

Your appeal has been dismissed because the claim was administratively approved by VA, and no determination remains with which you disagree.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of non-VA dental services is remanded due to missing relevant documents and incomplete information. The AOJ needs to obtain a copy of the December 2021 denial letter and all relevant records before it at the time it denied the claim.

The Veteran's long-term use of anticoagulants due to pulmonary embolism and recurring DVT, left lower extremity is rated at 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 7121. The Board found no evidence of persistent edema or eczema, which are required for a higher rating.

The Veteran withdrew their appeal for an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for herpes, and the case is dismissed.

The Board has granted service connection for the Veteran's right perforated tympanic membrane, finding that it is at least as likely as not etiologically linked to his active military service.

The Veteran's eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill educational benefits is granted based on her first period of active duty service from April 4, 2002 to November 25, 2007.

The Board has denied service connection for numbness, insomnia, fatigue, memory loss, and muscle pain claimed as due to Gulf War Syndrome because there is no current disability or evidence of a link between the conditions and service.

The Board found that the overpayment of $2,665.00 was validly created and not solely due to VA's administrative error. The Veteran failed to promptly inform VA about her divorce from her spouse.

The Board dismissed the appeal for entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) as the appellant withdrew their appeal prior to the decision being made.

The Board denied service connection for myelodysplastic syndrome (also claimed as acute myelogenous leukemia) due to a lack of evidence linking the condition to active service.

The Veteran's claim to switch educational assistance benefits from Chapter 30 to the Post-9/11 GI Bill is granted, as he has properly executed an irrevocable election and meets eligibility criteria.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of April 26, 2018, for service connection of residuals of a fractured third digit of the right hand. The decision found that the effective date was correctly assigned as it is later than when entitlement arose on October 17, 2018.

Your appeal has been dismissed due to the Veteran's death. The case will not be considered further until a request for substitution is made by an eligible person.

The appeal is dismissed because the Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal, and the Board cannot issue a decision on the underlying claim.

The appeal concerning the issues of entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 40 percent for right shoulder rotator cuff tendonitis, a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus, and service connection for obstructive sleep apnea is dismissed.

The appeal is dismissed because the medical services provided by Aegis Sciences Corporation on January 14, 2021, are covered under the Veterans Community Care Program and payment rates are governed by contractual agreements that do not allow for Board review.

The Veteran's spouse, D.G., was awarded burial benefits as the surviving spouse of the deceased Veteran. The appellant, who claimed to be the Veteran's legal spouse, submitted her claim after D.G.'s application and thus did not meet the priority criteria for receiving burial benefits.