Other conditions Board decisions

The Board granted the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of VA disability pension benefits in the amount of $4,146.50, finding that it was not against equity and good conscience to require payment.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the veteran's eye disorder is not related to service and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The appellant withdrew the appeal of the denial of entitlement to service connection for upper respiratory infection.

The veteran's appeal for an extension of a temporary total disability rating for convalescence beyond March 30, 1999 was dismissed as no timely substantive appeal was received.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for eligibility to VA benefits because the individual on whose service she claimed benefits had no active service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

The veteran's dysthymic disorder is rated at 70 percent for a period prior to December 22, 2000 and currently.

The Board has determined that the veteran's overpayment of VA pension benefits was validly created due to his failure to report changes in his family income. The debt, amounting to $3,824.00, will be waived as recovery would be against equity and good conscience.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for basic eligibility for nonservice-connected disability pension due to lack of qualifying peacetime active service.

The veteran's chest pain, twitching of the left eye (blepharoclonus), and skin disorder are all found to be related to his service in the Persian Gulf. The veteran does not have hepatitis or a reaction to anthrax vaccination injections.

The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for bilateral onychomycosis, which is the condition at issue.

The veteran's income has exceeded the maximum allowable annual income for nonservice-connected pension benefits, as determined by the applicable Maximum Annual Pension Rate (MAPR). The RO denied the veteran's claim of entitlement to non-service connected pension benefits due to excessive income.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for degenerative disease of multiple joints, finding that it was not incurred in or aggravated by his military service and is not proximately due to his service-connected hearing loss.

The veteran's service-connected right foot disability is rated at 20 percent disabling, which does not meet the criteria for a serious employment handicap under Chapter 31 of Title 38. Therefore, he is not entitled to benefits.

The Board has determined that the veteran's stomach disorder is not related to his service-connected disabilities, and thus denied his claim for secondary service connection.

The appellant's claim for VA disability benefits was denied because he did not provide valid documentation to verify his military service, and therefore, he is not considered a veteran for the purposes of receiving VA benefits.

The Board determined that the veteran did not receive interest payments on his NSLI benefits as there is no legal authority for such payment and the policies do not provide for it.

The Board denied an increased disability evaluation for the veteran's residuals of a fracture of the fifth sacrococcygeal vertebra and service connection for arthritis of multiple joints as secondary to his service-connected residuals. The veteran's current back pain was not found to warrant a higher rating, and there is no evidence that his arthritis is related to his service-connected condition.

The Board found no evidence that the veteran's cavernous hemangioma was incurred in or aggravated by service, and it is not related to a service-connected disability. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board found that the veteran's gastrointestinal disorder with hiatal hernia and abdominal hernia was not incurred in or aggravated by service, and may not be presumed to have been incurred in service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the award of additional compensation for a dependent spouse, finding that the evidence did not indicate notification of the marriage to the RO until July 1998.