Other conditions Board decisions

The Board granted service connection for rectal warts productive of pruritis ani and assigned an initial noncompensable rating, which was later changed to a compensable rating of 10 percent.

The Board has denied the veteran's claim for education benefits payments under Chapter 30 for fees required for Registration as an Attorney Applicant, Application for Determination of Moral Character, Admission Certificates, and Supreme Court Enrollment. The Board found that these fees do not fall within the definition of a program of education for which Chapter 30 benefit payments may be made.

The veteran's claim for an initial (compensable) disability rating for his service-connected left leg condition is being remanded due to the need for additional VA medical examination and development of evidence.

The RO denied service connection for the cause of the veteran's death due to a lack of authorization from the executor/administrator of the decedent's estate. The case is being remanded for further action.

The Board found no clear and unmistakable error in the January 1995 rating decision that denied service connection for periodontal disease, as the evidence then of record supported this determination.

The Board granted service connection for diverticulitis and assigned a 20% rating effective February 12, 2001. The veteran's symptoms were rated as moderate with mild to moderate functional impairment.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for nonservice-connected death pension and accrued benefits due to her husband not meeting the basic service eligibility requirements, as his military service was under Public Law 190, which does not extend eligibility for VA benefits. The claim for accrued benefits was also denied because it was filed outside of one year from the date of the veteran's death.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) has denied the veteran's claim for service connection for cancer of the pancreas, finding insufficient evidence to support a direct or secondary service connection. The appeal is being remanded to the RO for further development and consideration.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA benefits as her late husband did not have qualifying service to be eligible for VA benefits.

The appellant is denied basic eligibility for VA death pension benefits as the veteran's only recognized service was with the Commonwealth Army of the Philippines, which does not qualify for VA death pension benefits.

The Board has determined that the cause of the veteran's death, hepatic failure with recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma, is etiologically related to his service-connected type II diabetes mellitus, which was presumed due to herbicide exposure in Vietnam.

The Board dismissed the appeal because a timely Substantive Appeal was not filed with respect to the RO's July 2000 decision denying an extension of a delimiting date for education benefits under Chapter 1606, 10 U.S.C.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits due to a lack of qualifying service in the United States Armed Forces, thus denying his claim.

The Board found that the appellant's deceased spouse did not have recognized active service, and thus does not meet the requirements for basic legal entitlement to VA death benefits.

The Board has determined that the current record is inadequate for a fully informed decision and requires additional development, including obtaining medical opinions on the date of onset and etiology of the veteran's left testicular tumor, as well as whether residuals were aggravated during service.

The veteran's waiver of recovery for an overpayment of $19,749 in pension benefits was denied due to his bad faith actions.

The VAMC denied the veteran's application for enrollment in, and access to, VA medical care benefits due to his not meeting the eligibility criteria for Priority Group 8.

The Board has remanded the case for further review by a VA pulmonary specialist to determine the likely etiology of the veteran's lung cancer and its relationship to service, including any potential asbestos or fume exposure.

The Board has remanded the case for further action due to a lack of VCAA notification and duty to assist provisions.

The veteran is seeking service connection for impotency, which he believes to be secondary to his service-connected left herniorrhaphy with a left orchiectomy. The case has been remanded due to the need for additional development under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA).