Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has granted a separate 10 percent evaluation for right ilioinguinal neuralgia, but denied an increased rating for postoperative residuals of right inguinal hernia repair.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for arthritis of the right hip and an increased rating for arthritis of the right (major) fifth metacarpal. The appeals are denied.

The Board found that the submitted evidence did not present new and material evidence to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for bilateral hip, leg, and spine disabilities.

The veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection for a back disorder were denied. The denial of the back disorder claim was based on lack of probative medical evidence establishing a causal relationship between the residuals of Guillain-Barre syndrome and the back disorder.

The Board found that the veteran's bilateral hearing loss was not incurred in or aggravated by his active military service. The preponderance of evidence showed no connection between his current hearing loss and service.

The veteran's dysthymia has been granted a 10 percent evaluation effective December 21, 1999. The current rating is based on the criteria for mild occupational and social impairment.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has ordered further development to determine the validity and amount of an overpayment of educational assistance benefits for a specific period, as well as compliance with new VA regulations under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

The Board granted service connection for a neurological disability and increased the rating for diabetes mellitus to 40 percent, effective from July 1, 1980.

The Board found that the appellant did not file a timely Substantive Appeal to the RO's October 1994 decision granting DIC benefits, and thus denied her appeal.

The veteran's service was not considered wartime service, and therefore he is not eligible for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Board denied a compensable rating for the appellant's service-connected status post left inguinal herniorrhaphy, finding that there was no objective clinical confirmation of the criteria necessary for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 7338.

The Board found that the veteran's undiagnosed disability of the central nervous system existed prior to his active service and did not increase in severity during or as a result of his training with the reserves. Therefore, the claim for service connection was denied.

The veteran's overpayment of VA pension benefits was denied due to his misrepresentation of a material fact regarding his receipt of Commonwealth of Puerto Rico disability pension benefits.

The appellant's service with the Philippine Commonwealth Army, USAFFE (United States Armed Forces in the Far East), including recognized guerrillas, is not deemed to have been active military service for purposes of VA disability pension benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's claim of new and material evidence to reopen his basic eligibility for VA benefits, as no new or material evidence was presented.

The Board found that the veteran's cause of death (acute myocardial infarction with secondary pulmonary edema) was not incurred in or aggravated by active service, nor may it be presumed to have been incurred. The preponderance of evidence does not support the appellant's claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death.

The Board has granted a 50 percent rating for the veteran's dysthymia, finding that his symptoms align with the criteria for such a rating. The highest available rating is being awarded.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to an effective date of June 9, 1994 for DIC benefits due to her claim being filed before a liberalizing law allowing presumptive service connection for multiple myeloma.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for back and throat injuries, as well as a claim for an initial compensable rating for tonsillectomy residuals. The evidence did not support these claims.

The RO denied the veteran's claim for apportionment of his VA disability compensation benefits. The case is being remanded to ensure full compliance with due process requirements and additional development.