Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied service connection for a dental disorder as there was no evidence of loss of substance of the body of the maxilla or mandible through trauma or disease such as osteomyelitis. The veteran's teeth were extracted due to carious and periodontal issues, which are not disabilities for which service connection may be established.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits due to a lack of qualifying service with the United States Armed Forces.

The veteran's right eye blindness is rated at 30 percent, and the claim for an increased rating is denied.

The RO granted service connection for residuals of cold injury of both feet and assigned a 20 percent evaluation effective from June 10, 1996. The veteran's disability was re-characterized as residuals of cold injury of the right lower extremity and left lower extremity with separate 30 percent evaluations effective from January 12, 1998.,The RO denied service connection for residuals of cold injury of both feet in May 1995. The veteran submitted a petition to reopen his claim on June 10, 1996 and the RO granted service connection with a 20 percent evaluation effective from June 10, 1996.,The criteria for a disability evaluation in excess of 30 percent since January 12, 1998 were not met for residuals of cold injury of both feet. The veteran's symptoms included pain and distal peripheral neuropathy with mild swelling, tenderness, or redness.

The Board denied secondary service connection for a hypertensive disorder and angina, finding no credible evidence linking these conditions to the service-connected thrombophlebitis of the right leg.

The appellant is not entitled to non-service connected death pension benefits due to excess income in 1997.

The veteran's right index finger was amputated, and the metacarpal bone was also resected. The Board has granted a 30% evaluation for this condition.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim of service connection for arthritis due to new evidence submitted since the last final RO decision in December 1968.

The VA determined that the veteran's left elbow injury residuals, which are currently rated as 10 percent disabling, do not warrant a higher rating based on the evidence of record.

The Board has granted a waiver of recovery for the overpayment of VA improved pension benefits in the amount of $1,644 due to hardship and lack of fault on the part of the veteran.

The veteran's claim for service connection for emphysema due to tobacco use in service or nicotine dependence is denied as lacking legal merit.

The veteran's claim for an effective date earlier than January 26, 1996 for the award of nonservice-connected pension benefits was denied. The RO considered his request for a total disability evaluation based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability and requested additional information from him.

The VA denied the veteran's claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for ptosis of the left eye with mild visual field deficit.

The VA determined that the appellant's deceased spouse did not have qualifying service for VA benefits and denied the claim.

The Board has determined that a timely notice of disagreement was submitted regarding the denial of service connection for quadriplegia in September 1989, and therefore the underlying claim is remanded to issue a statement of the case.

The VA has denied the veteran's claim for an increased rating for his residuals of a head injury with post concussion syndrome, currently rated at 30 percent.

The VA determined that the appellant did not have valid military service in the Army of the United States or as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas. Therefore, he is not considered a 'veteran' for purposes of establishing eligibility to VA benefits.

The Board has determined that additional development is necessary to verify the veteran's claimed stressors and determine if they occurred during his service. The case will be returned for further review.

The Board dismissed the appeal because no substantive appeal was filed within the required 60-day period following the issuance of the statement of the case.

The veteran is seeking reimbursement or payment for unauthorized medical care and ambulance services. The Board denied these claims as the criteria for reimbursement under VA regulations were not met.