Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA benefits because he did not meet the requirements to be considered a veteran, and therefore cannot establish basic eligibility for these benefits.

The Board has restored the previously-assigned 10 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected left varicocele.

The Board has determined that recovery of the overpayment would not cause undue hardship and is therefore granted.

The Board found that the overpayment debt of improved disability pension benefits was properly created and assessed to the veteran due to his failure to accurately report his total family income for a specific period, resulting in retroactive overpayment.

The Board found that the October 21, 1946 rating decision was not clearly and unmistakably erroneous in assigning a 20 percent rating for the appellant's shell fragment wound of the right gluteal region. The RO did not commit CUE in its decision. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to a higher rating.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of basic eligibility for VA benefits due to lack of new and material evidence, as the submitted documents were duplicative and did not prove qualifying service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of fractures of the left tibia is being remanded due to new regulations and additional development required under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.

The veteran withdrew his appeal before the Board could make a decision.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim for nonservice-connected disability pension benefits, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for psychoneurosis and for an effective date earlier than January 26, 1973, for a total rating based on individual unemployability. The decision regarding service connection was due to the denial of CUE in the prior rating decision, while the claim for an earlier effective date was denied as there were no criteria met.

The Board denied service connection for porphyria in December 1983, and the veteran's motion alleging clear and unmistakable error was denied.

The veteran's service-connected history of sarcoidosis has been manifested by residual respiratory findings consistent with slight dyspnea on exercise prior to October 7, 2000. The veteran is granted a compensable evaluation for this condition.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected injury of the left eye with retained foreign bodies warranted a 10 percent evaluation, but did not warrant an increase beyond this level. The worsening visual acuity was attributed to cataracts rather than the retained foreign bodies.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for left orchialgia, status post varicocele surgery is being remanded due to the need for updated VA examination and additional development of medical records.

The Board has determined that the veteran's request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of improved pension benefits in the amount of $9824 was timely submitted and may be considered on its merits. The case is remanded to ensure compliance with the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA).

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has not been submitted to reopen the claim of service connection for ulcer disease, resulting in a denial.

The RO granted compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for post-operative residuals of a partial sternectomy and left pectoralis flap surgery with a 20% rating effective April 8, 1994.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for post-traumatic stress disorder due to a lack of credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressors occurred, particularly his participation in patrols and killing of a Vietnamese boy.

The Board has granted a partial waiver of the veteran's overpayment, reducing his debt from $5,766 to $2,883. The remaining debt of $1,486 will not be waived due to the lack of undue hardship.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate VA examinations and new regulations requiring notification and development of claims under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000.