Other conditions decisions — 2026

The Veteran's appeal for payment of non-VA medical services provided on May 25, 2020 is remanded due to a duty-to-assist error in the AOJ decisions. The VHA must provide proper notice under 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b).

The Veteran's bowel and urinary problems are a result of the June 2009 surgeries at VA, but it is unclear if these issues were caused by carelessness or negligence on the part of VA. The Board has ordered a medical opinion to clarify this.

The appeal for DIC benefits was dismissed due to the appellant's death during the pendency of the appeal.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision. The case is dismissed.

The Board has determined that the appellant meets the requirements for VA home loan guaranty benefits due to her service during the Persian Gulf War, despite not meeting the minimum 24 months of continuous active duty.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection of esophageal cancer, finding that there was no evidence to support a relationship between his current condition and military service.

The Veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for undescended right testicle was denied as there is no legal right to the benefit sought.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to inadequate notice provided by VA regarding the overpayment of $27,044.05 in DIC benefits and the recoupment from prior receipt of DOD SBP benefits. The Appellant is seeking clarification on the basis for the decision and proper accounting.

The Board has determined that the cash surrender value of the Veteran's government life insurance policy (RS17615476) was incorrectly calculated. The case is being remanded for further development to ensure the correct calculation and notification.

The Veteran's brain cancer is granted service connection due to the PACT Act presumption of exposure. His TBI and jaw disability claims are denied.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for VA home loan guaranty benefits due to insufficient active duty service, as she did not meet the required 24 months of continuous active duty.

The Veteran's claim for travel expenses reimbursement to and from the Syracuse VAMC was denied as the closest VA facility where primary care services could be provided was the Binghampton VA clinic, not the Syracuse VAMC. The Board found that the Veteran did not have a valid reason to seek treatment at the Syracuse VAMC.

The Board has determined that the VA's decision on eligibility for PCAFC was not legally adequate and requires a new medical determination considering all available evidence.

The Board denied the appeal regarding the termination of apportionment of the Veteran's disability compensation, finding that it was proper due to the parties' divorce on April 11, 2024.

The Board has granted service connection for myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) due to conceded exposure to Agent Orange in Vietnam. The evidence supports a link between Agent Orange and MDS, with the Veteran's condition being diagnosed after his exposure.

The Board has remanded the case due to an error in the decision regarding the eligibility for a higher-level stipend under VA's Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC). The claimants need to be notified about the decision and provided with proper notice as required by law.

The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for complex regional pain syndrome, left hand is being remanded due to procedural errors in the initial rating decision and need for further medical examination.

The Veteran's lung disability is remanded for a new medical opinion considering her service-related toxic exposure, including aerosolized mercury as a dental assistant and potential environmental exposures at Fort McClellan.

The Board has remanded the claim of service connection for multiple myeloma due to a duty to assist error and the need for an addendum medical opinion addressing the pathophysiology and direct service connection theory.

The Board has determined that there is insufficient information in the claims file to properly evaluate whether the Veteran's means test eligibility category was changed from copay exempt to copay required. The decision is remanded for further development.