Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for thrombophlebitis of the left leg due to new and material evidence submitted since the February 2000 rating decision.

The veteran's claim for reimbursement of $101.80 for the repair of a transmission shift cable on his 1984 Pontiac Grand Prix is denied as the transmission shift cable is not considered an adaptive equipment component.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased evaluation for residuals of left vocal cord carcinoma and service connection for a secondary esophageal disability, finding that the current evaluations were appropriate.

The veteran's right knee disability, characterized by degenerative joint disease with pain and functional impairment, does not meet the criteria for a higher rating than the currently assigned 10 percent evaluation.

The Board found that the veteran's claimed impaired hearing disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service, nor is it etiologically related to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for a temporary total rating following surgery to remove a lipoma on her thigh, finding that the lipoma was unrelated to her service-connected left knee disorder.

The Board has determined that the evidence submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for a duodenal ulcer is not new and material, thus denying the veteran's request.

The Board found that the veteran's ulcerative colitis and ankylosing spondylitis are related to his period of active service, granting service connection for both conditions.

The Board denied service connection for cataracts as a result of exposure to ionizing radiation, finding that the veteran did not have current disability and that any claimed cataracts were age-related.

The Board has found the evidence sufficient to substantiate the veteran's claim for service connection for left elbow disability and is granting the claim.

The veteran's appeals for service connection for skin disorders other than genital herpes as due to exposure to Agent Orange and an earlier effective date for the award of a compensable disability evaluation for genital herpes were dismissed because he did not timely file substantive appeals. The appeal for service connection for tinnitus was also dismissed.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected disabilities, including multiple shrapnel wounds and fractures of the pubic rami, warrant increased evaluations. However, specific ratings have not been assigned due to lack of clear evidence.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in a December 1993 rating decision that granted an increased rating of 30 percent for service-connected residuals of bilateral frozen feet, status post amputation of the right great toe. The appeal was based on disagreement with how the RO applied the applicable laws and regulations.

The Board found that the veteran's spinal disorder was not incurred or aggravated by service, and therefore denied his claim.

The VA determined that the veteran's schizoaffective disorder, formerly characterized as dysthymia, does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 50 percent.

The veteran's disability necessitating aid and attendance of another person was established on June 7, 1993. The effective date for special monthly pension based upon the need for regular aid and attendance is set at this date.

The Board denied the appellant's request for waiver of overpayment of VA Chapter 35 Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits, finding that it was not timely filed.

The Board denied the veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for a stomach disorder, finding that the new evidence did not show a current stomach disorder and was not sufficient to reopen the claim.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a cardiovascular condition or left hip disorder that is related to service, and thus denied both claims.

The VA determined that the veteran's service-connected glomerulosclerosis, which is currently rated at 10 percent, does not warrant a higher rating as it does not meet the criteria for a higher evaluation under the current schedular criteria.