Other conditions Board decisions

Your appeals for specially adapted housing, special home adaptation, and increased Special Monthly Compensation (SMC) have been dismissed as the Veteran has withdrawn his requests for a hearing and appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient data for calculating the Veteran's overpayment and waiver claims. The Veteran needs to clarify his challenges regarding the number of UTAs executed during FYs 2011 to 2016, as well as the amount of overpayment based on these UTAs.

The Board has granted service connection for bilateral cataracts, pterygium, and dry eye syndrome. The conditions are considered to be directly related to the Veteran's military service.

The Veteran's right thumb DJD is currently rated at 20 percent disabling, but the Board finds no basis for a higher rating in excess of this current rating.

The Board has remanded the Veteran's claims for service connection for bilateral bunions and a left foot callus due to insufficient medical opinion regarding their etiology.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development and examination of the Veteran's service-connected disabilities, including their impact on his ability to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues and additional development is required to ensure compliance with contested claims procedures.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for residuals of a shell fragment wound to Muscle Group XVII was granted with an effective date of June 24, 1977. The Veteran had previously filed his original claim on that same day.

The Veteran seeks service connection for chronic vascular deficiency and lymphedema, which he asserts is related to his duties as a track vehicle mechanic. The Board finds the evidence currently meets the low threshold for obtaining a VA examination as to this claim and remands for such an examination.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence being added since the last decision, and the AOJ needs to review this new information before making a final determination.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete verification of the Veteran's periods of active duty and active duty for training service after September 10, 2001. The AOJ is instructed to contact DoD to verify all such periods and provide the specific dates of qualifying and nonqualifying service.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed due to their death. The Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this case as they are no longer alive.

The Veteran's varicose veins of both lower extremities are currently rated at 40 percent each, and the Board finds that a higher rating is not warranted based on the evidence of record.

The Veteran's left arm ruptured distal bicep tendon disability has been rated at 30 percent since March 27, 2011. The Board found the current symptoms do not warrant a higher rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to a missing hearing transcript and for scheduling a new hearing. The Veteran's entitlement to education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill-Selected Reserve, Chapter 1606, Title 10, United States Code is being reviewed.

The Board has remanded the case due to incomplete medical opinions and need for additional development, including obtaining a VA examination.

The Board has granted service connection for memory impairment and neurocognitive disorder as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected PTSD. Service connection for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for benefits under both 38 U.S.C. § 1815 and 38 U.S.C. § 1805, finding that he does not meet the legal criteria to qualify for these benefits due to lack of evidence of a form or manifestation of spina bifida.

The Veteran's claims for service connection for an eye disability and CRPS, claimed as a right hand condition, were denied. The issue of TDIU was deemed moot due to the Veteran being in receipt of a combined 100% rating for the entire period on appeal.

The Board has remanded the case due to procedural issues, including a need for another TDIU development letter and ensuring full representation rights are upheld.