Other conditions Board decisions

The veteran's death was service-connected, but the appellant did not meet the eligibility criteria for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under Chapter 35 of Title 38, United States Code because she had already reached her 26th birthday prior to the date of the veteran's death.

The veteran's claim for additional disability pension benefits for his dependent spouse was denied due to the lack of valid marriage documentation.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current dental condition is not service-connected, as there is no evidence of a dental trauma in-service and insufficient medical records to establish a nexus between any current disability and service.

The appellant is not eligible for educational assistance benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code due to reaching his 26th birthday before the effective date of a permanent and total disability rating for his father.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete records and a need for further examination. The appellant's claims for service connection for jaw and dental conditions are pending.

The Board found no evidence of a direct service connection for the veteran's hypertensive vascular disease, stroke, and visual condition. The hypertension is not considered to be related to his right kidney removal or any other service-connected disability.

The Board found no competent medical evidence linking the veteran's current cold injury residuals to service, and denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's appeal is remanded due to the lack of a valid medical certificate for flight training on May 29, 2003. The VA will seek copies of any First or Second Class Medical Certificate from the Federal Aviation Administration.

The veteran's application for VA healthcare benefits was denied because he does not meet the basic eligibility requirements, including having no service-connected disabilities and being in a priority category that is not eligible to be enrolled.

The veteran's appeal has been withdrawn due to the grant of increased evaluations for his service-connected right and left foot disabilities.

The VA determined that the veteran's bilateral cataracts were not incurred in or aggravated by active service.

The veteran's unauthorized emergency medical expenses for the period from June to July 2003 were reimbursed by his vehicular insurance policy. As a result, he is denied reimbursement from VA.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional VA medical examination and opinion, as well as to obtain updated treatment records. The issues of increased ratings for conjunctivitis and left eye corneal opacity with light perception only are addressed, along with the issue of service connection for a right eye disorder.

The Board has determined that a higher rating for the veteran's service-connected stab wound of the left anterior chest is not warranted, as his disability does not meet or approximate the criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent.

The veteran's carotid artery disease, which he underwent surgery for in 2003, is considered to have been aggravated by his service-connected diabetes mellitus. The Board finds that with the resolution of reasonable doubt in the veteran's favor, his carotid artery disease may be considered to have been aggravated by his diabetes for purposes of awarding service connection benefits.

The Board found that the appellant did not qualify as the veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of VA death benefits due to a lack of evidence supporting a valid common law marriage.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to issues regarding the veteran's claimed stressors during service.

The veteran's appeal for service connection on the issue of residuals of lead or fuel poisoning has been withdrawn. The case is being dismissed.

The Board has determined that the veteran's dental trauma to teeth numbers 7, 8, 9 and 10 is service-connected for the purpose of receiving VA dental treatment. The issue of residuals of a head injury (claimed as dementia) was also granted. However, the claim for an increased disability rating for hypertension with headaches remains denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant did not timely file a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) regarding the termination date for educational assistance benefits, and thus does not have jurisdiction to review the merits of this issue.