Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA benefits due to a lack of recognized service in the United States Armed Forces, specifically as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army.

The veteran's appeal is denied as she does not meet the basic service eligibility criteria for educational assistance under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected corneal ulcer of the left eye is being remanded due to a lack of adequate medical evidence. The RO must obtain updated medical records and schedule the veteran for a comprehensive VA ophthalmology examination.

The Board denied the appellant's application to reopen his claim of entitlement to basic eligibility for VA benefits because no new and material evidence was submitted, despite the appellant submitting documents from the Philippine Army.

The Board denied service connection for gouty arthritis due to the lack of evidence linking the condition to military service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim to reopen his service connection for venous malformation, previously stated as hemangioma of the left neck with pharyngeal variceo, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Board has denied the veteran's spouse's request for an increased apportionment of the veteran's VA pension benefits, finding that actual hardship supporting additional monies is not demonstrated by the evidence of record.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have recognized military service and therefore is not considered a veteran for purposes of VA benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for revocation of forfeiture of VA benefits, finding no new and material evidence.

The Board found that the veteran's left hand disability was not caused by VA medical treatment, and thus granted compensation benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The Board granted service connection for ulcerative colitis based on new and material evidence received in 1996, establishing an effective date of October 25, 2000.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen her claim for revocation of forfeiture of VA benefits, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The veteran's appeal is about the effective dates of dependency allowance payments for his spouse. The Regional Office (RO) has requested a Travel Board hearing to address these issues.

The Board denied the veteran's motion to reopen his claim for basic eligibility to VA benefits, finding that he had not submitted new and material evidence.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an increased rating for duodenal ulcer and service connection for weakened teeth, finding that the evidence did not meet the criteria for a higher rating. The claim to reopen the GERD and hiatal hernia was deferred pending completion of development.

The veteran failed to submit a timely substantive appeal regarding his claim of entitlement to an extension of a temporary total rating for convalescence beyond January 31, 1994. As a result, the Board has no jurisdiction over this matter and the appeal must be dismissed.

The VA has determined that the veteran's service-connected residuals of a left eye injury with right eye pinguecula do not warrant a compensable evaluation.

The veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred at Baylor University Medical Center from June 24, 1999 to August 17, 1999 were related to his service-connected circulatory disability. The Board found that VA or other Federal facilities were not feasibly available and an attempt to use them beforehand would have been reasonable, sound, wise, or practicable.

The Board denied service connection for a cardiovascular disability, finding no evidence of its onset in or related to service or any service-connected condition.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for an allergic disorder, a right leg disorder, and an increased rating for duodenal ulcer disease. The claim to reopen a psychiatric disorder was dismissed due to untimely filing of a substantive appeal.