Other conditions Board decisions

The veteran's claim for VA nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied as he did not serve in the active military, naval or air service during a period of war.

The Board found that the claimant's failure to report her correct income constituted misrepresentation of a material fact, which precludes waiver of recovery of the overpayment of VA death pension benefits in the amount of $20,046.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected left middle finger disability warrants a 30 percent evaluation, effective from March 1951. The right elbow limitation of motion is not associated with the gunshot wound to the right forearm.

The Board has found that the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of improved pension benefits was timely filed, and therefore grants this claim.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including a VA examination to assess the veteran's left chest and shoulder conditions, as well as any restrictive lung disorder. The veteran may be entitled to separate ratings for distinct manifestations of his service-connected residuals of a gunshot wound.

The Board found that the veteran received overpayment of non-service-connected disability pension benefits due to underreporting his wife's Social Security income. The RO Committee on Waivers denied the veteran's claim for waiver of recovery of this overpayment, concluding that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for a 100% evaluation for his service-connected lung cancer was denied as it was not factually ascertainable prior to July 31, 1998 that the criteria for such a rating had been met.

The Board found that the overpayment of $1048 was properly created due to the claimant's acceptance and negotiation of a check for DIC benefits, despite being aware she was not entitled. The Board concluded that recovery would not be against the principles of equity and good conscience as her fault in receiving the payment outweighed any financial hardship incurred.

The Board denied an increased rating for the veteran's service-connected lumbar spine disorder, maintaining the current 40 percent disability rating.

The Board has determined that the forfeiture declared against the veteran was proper under 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a).

The veteran's attempt to reopen his claim for service connection for a skin disorder, to include as due to exposure to herbicides, was denied. The decision is considered 'mixed' because some issues were granted and others not.

The Board has determined that an initial disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for arthralgia of the thoracic spine is denied.

The Board has granted an earlier effective date for DEA benefits, considering the appellant's eligibility and retroactive application of the benefits as of August 30, 1993.

The Board has determined that the veteran's Hodgkin's disease is currently in remission and does not meet the criteria for an initial compensable rating evaluation.

The Board denied reopening of a claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 due to lack of new and material evidence, as the submitted records do not show additional disability from an IVP performed at a VA medical center on April 16, 1984.

The Board has determined that the effective date for the grant of nonservice-connected pension benefits should be March 11, 1999.

The veteran's claim for an earlier effective date of HIV disease was granted, with the effective date set at December 29, 1995.

The veteran's death was due to a myocardial infarction during inactive duty training, but the Board found that this did not meet the legal criteria for service connection under the law in effect prior to November 1, 2000.

The Board found that the veteran's death was not caused by a service-connected disability, as there was no evidence of radiation exposure during his military service. Therefore, the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is denied.

The veteran is reasonably discharging his responsibility for supporting the child, and an apportionment of VA benefits is not warranted.