Other conditions Board decisions

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the appellant's spouse did not have recognized military service, and therefore, she is not eligible for VA benefits.

The Board has determined that the appellant had no recognized military service with the United States Armed Forces, and therefore does not meet the criterion of 'veteran' for purposes of entitlement to VA benefits.

The veteran's appeal to the denial of his request for waiver of recovery of an overpayment of pension benefits in the amount of $4,560 was denied as untimely.

The Board has determined that the veteran's injuries were not incurred in line of duty due to his own misconduct, and thus denied service connection for the claimed conditions.

The Board found no evidence linking the veteran's death to his military service, and denied claims for service connection for cause of death and basic eligibility for Dependents' Educational Assistance.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the appellant's claim for nonservice-connected death pension benefits, which she previously had been denied. The appellant is now entitled to have her case reviewed on its merits.

The Board has determined that the reduction in rating from 90 percent to 30 percent for decreased visual acuity, effective February 1, 1993, was proper. The restoration of special monthly compensation based on blindness is also granted.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits because her deceased husband had no qualifying service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army or recognized guerrilla service with the U.S. Armed Forces.

The Board finds that the July 1, 1965 rating decision reducing the veteran's disability evaluation from 100 percent to 70 percent was clearly and unmistakably erroneous.

The Board has determined that the veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma warrants a 30 percent disability rating, effective from December 1995. The issues of bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome and peripheral neuropathy secondary to Agent Orange exposure are not addressed in this decision.

The VA determined that the veteran's PTSD resulted in no more than social and occupational impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, warranting a 50 percent rating.

The Board found that the veteran did not file a timely notice of disagreement with the August 1994 decision denying waiver of recovery of an overpayment of improved disability pension benefits, and thus denied his appeal.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his left knee disability, finding that the current 30 percent evaluation adequately reflects the severity of his condition.

The Board found that new and material evidence had not been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for a gynecological disability, characterized as vaginal discharge, urinary tract infection, or female disorder. The RO determined there was no showing of a chronic female disorder or urinary tract infection during service.

The Board has granted a waiver of the recovery of an overpayment of apportioned compensation benefits in the amount of $1,016.00 due to the appellant's financial hardship and minimal fault.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of flash burns to both eyes and determined that new evidence submitted by the veteran is sufficient to reopen the claim. The RO will now conduct further examination and obtain any necessary medical records to determine if a current eye disorder is related to service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's pelvic inflammatory disease, endometriosis and perimetritis were not incurred in or aggravated by military service.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected right zygomatic bone fracture with dental malocclusion is being remanded due to the need for additional medical examination and compliance with prior Board orders.

The appellant's service, consisting of recognized guerrilla and Regular Philippine Army service prior to July 1, 1946, does not meet the requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Board has determined that the appellant is no longer entitled to an apportionment of the veteran's compensation benefits as she was not living with him at the time her claim was filed and subsequently divorced.