Other conditions Board decisions

The Board finds that the veteran's trench mouth during service was an acute and transitory disorder that resolved with treatment, leaving no residual disability. The VA examiner concluded that the current dental problems are more likely related to normal periodontal disease rather than the inservice trench mouth.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for sickle cell trait with anemia, finding no current disability and no link between any such condition and service.

The Board denied service connection for loss of the sense of smell and pharyngitis and laryngitis, including as due to an undiagnosed illness.

The VA granted an initial 80 percent evaluation for narcolepsy with cataplexy, effective April 9, 2004. A total rating based on individual unemployability was also granted.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 60 percent for duodenal ulcer, status post gastrectomy, was denied. The Board also found that the criteria for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability were not met.

The case is being remanded for further development and consideration of the claims, including obtaining medical opinions on radiation exposure and asbestos exposure, as well as informing the appellant about the information needed to substantiate her claims.

The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for the veteran's maxillary cyst, finding that current manifestations of postoperative scars meet the criteria under Code 7804. The condition is rated as 10 percent disabling.

The Board has granted service connection for a skin disability as secondary to herbicide exposure. The claim of service connection for a right eye disorder was denied, and the claim of service connection for a low back disability is pending.

The Board has determined that the veteran's death was not due to a service-connected disability and that his service-connected disabilities did not materially contribute to his death.

The Board found that the veteran submitted new but not material evidence to reopen his service connection claim for a nervous disorder. The RO denied this claim in April 1978, and again in April 1992. The current attempt was denied due to lack of competent medical evidence connecting an in-service psychiatric disorder to the veteran's current condition.

The Board found that the veteran's discharge was issued under other than honorable conditions, which bars him from receiving VA benefits based on his period of service.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of her husband's death, finding that there was no pending claim at the time of his death and thus no legal basis for accrued benefits.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine if the veteran's service-connected disabilities render him unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional medical opinions regarding whether VA treatment caused or contributed to the veteran's left eye disability and his current right eye vision impairment.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bilateral leg condition, diagnosed as multiple osteomas or Ollier's disease, was aggravated by service and is therefore entitled to service connection.

The veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral eye disability is denied as there is no evidence of a disease or injury in service and the current visual acuity is due to refractive error.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient development and a need for further examination.

The VA denied an increased evaluation for Crohn's disease, currently rated at 30 percent.

The veteran's appeal for higher ratings for his service-connected chronic back strain and postoperative right femur fracture residuals was denied. The RO found that the current disability ratings adequately reflected the severity of these conditions.

The veteran's digestive system disability, which includes dumping syndrome, hypoglycemia and B12 and iron deficiencies, was evaluated at 60 percent. The evaluation is denied as the disability does not meet the criteria for a higher rating.