Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran meets the criteria for restoration of special monthly pension based on the need for regular aid and attendance due to visual acuity of 5/200 or less in both eyes, as evidenced by recent VA examinations.

The Board has determined that the veteran's failure to report his income accurately resulted in an overpayment of pension benefits. The debt is being waived due to the fault of the debtor and the fact that the veteran's current financial situation allows for repayment without undue hardship.

The Board found that the appellant had no recognized military service with the Armed Forces of the United States and therefore denied his claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for VA benefits due to a lack of qualifying military service.

The VA denied the appellant's claim for VA benefits due to her late husband not having recognized service in the Armed Forces of the United States.

The appellant's husband had no recognized military service with the Armed Forces of the United States, and therefore is not considered a veteran for purposes of entitlement to VA benefits. The appeal for basic eligibility for VA death pension benefits is denied.

The Board found that the veteran did not have recognized military service and therefore denied his claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits.

The appellant's spouse had recognized service as a Philippine Scout, but no other recognized service. The appellant is not eligible for VA death pension benefits due to the lack of qualifying service.

The veteran's claim for service connection for status post craniotomy due to an astrocytoma was granted, but the effective date is limited to a period of not more than two years prior to his death.

The veteran's claim for an increased rating for his service-connected residuals of a shell fragment wound of the right arm is being remanded due to the need for additional examinations and consideration.

The Board denied the claim for VA pension benefits in October 1998, and this decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The veteran is requesting that the Board's decision be revised based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE).

The Board found that the appellant's claims for service connection for a stomach disorder and a right leg disorder were not well grounded, as there was no competent evidence linking these conditions to his military service or any service-connected disability.

The Board found that the veteran's left elbow fracture residuals do not warrant a compensable rating, as there is no evidence of malunion or deformity. The only impairment is slight limitation of motion.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development of evidence and readjudication, including a VA psychiatric examination to determine the current severity of PTSD.

The Board has determined that the veteran's death was caused by cancer of the lung with metastasis, which is a direct result of his service. Meningitis contributed to his death but was not the underlying cause.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for arthritis of the second and third fingers of the right hand, finding that there was no evidence linking his current disability to an in-service injury.

The Board has granted a disability rating of 40 percent for the veteran's service-connected intervertebral disc syndrome with minimal degenerative changes and lower extremity neurological abnormality, effective as of March 22, 1989.

The Board denied an increased evaluation for the veteran's right ear infection and cholesteatoma, finding that separate compensable evaluations were not warranted.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for esophageal cancer, finding that it was not incurred or aggravated by service and did not result from exposure to radiation. The cause of death was attributed to sepsis due to complications including chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claims for service connection for photophobia, photosensitivity, and spondylolisthesis (which led to a laminectomy). However, there is no evidence of in-service exposure or chronicity of these conditions. The claims are therefore not well grounded.