Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a stomach disability, finding no evidence of a chronic condition present during or within one year after service.

The Board has found that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a neck disorder. The issue of whether there was clear and unmistakable error in the June 1983 rating decision denying service connection for a cervical spine disability is not before the Board at this time.

The veteran's service-connected TMJ disability was initially granted with a 20 percent rating prior to January 1, 2000. After that date, the disability was rated at 10 percent. The appeal is mixed as some issues were granted and others denied.

The Board found that the veteran's overpayment of VA non-service-connected pension benefits was created due to misrepresentation of material facts regarding his household income and net worth. As a result, waiver of recovery is precluded.

The veteran claims service connection for a back disorder, but the RO has not obtained all relevant medical records and an examination is needed to determine if his current back condition is related to service.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for a right foot disorder. The issue is now on its merits.

The Board denied increased ratings for the veteran's service-connected residuals of a shell fragment wound of the throat and fractured left cheek bone, as well as denying claims to reopen his claim for loss of vision in the left eye.

The veteran's service-connected urinary stricture is found to warrant a compensable rating, with the need for absorbent materials and frequent bathroom visits.

The Board has determined that the appellant's March 8, 1999 notice of disagreement was timely filed with the May 13, 1998 decision denying her claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death due to exposure to Agent Orange. The case is now remanded to issue a statement of the case on this issue.

The Board denied the veteran's request to reopen his claim of service connection for a shrapnel wound, left leg. The evidence submitted since 1985 was deemed not new and material.

The veteran's residuals, fracture, left tibia and fibula are currently productive of slight ankle disability with dorsiflexion from zero to 15 degrees and plantar flexion from zero to 40 degrees. The Board has granted a 10 percent rating for this condition.

The Board has determined that the appellant's service-connected residuals of a left great toe injury warrant a 10 percent disability rating, as his symptoms do not meet or approximate the criteria for a higher evaluation.

The Board has dismissed the appellant's claim as not well grounded due to the prohibition of service connection for a disability on the basis that it resulted from an injury or disease attributable to the use of tobacco products in service. The carcinoma of the neck was not manifest during service or within one year of separation, and there is no evidence linking the cancer to active service.

The Board found that the veteran's dental injuries sustained in May 1970 were due to his own willful misconduct, and not incurred in the line of duty.

The VA has determined that the veteran's bilateral pterygium does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation based on visual acuity.

The Board denied the veteran's request for a waiver of recovery of an overpayment of Chapter 31 vocational rehabilitation benefits in the amount of $1,328.23 due to her failure to attend classes on a half-time basis as required by regulation.

The veteran's income exceeds the maximum annual pension rate, so he is not eligible for non-service connected disability pension benefits.

The veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than June 16, 1999, for assignment of a 100 percent evaluation for schizoaffective disorder is granted. The effective date is set at August 11, 1998.

The veteran's service did not occur during a period of war, and therefore he is not eligible for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the appellant is ineligible for VA pension benefits due to a lack of qualifying service, and thus denied her claim.