Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's appeal for additional dependency compensation for his daughter, V., as a dependent school child from May 2013 to September 2015 was denied because the claim was not filed within the prescribed timeframe.

The Board has remanded the case due to new evidence submitted by the appellant, and it is not clear if service connection is at issue.

The appeal was dismissed due to the Veteran's death, and no further action can be taken on this case.

The Board has received a withdrawal of the appeal for permanent incapacity for self-support, and thus the case is dismissed.

The Veteran's appeal was dismissed due to their death, and no final decision can be made as the Board does not have jurisdiction.

The Veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 20 percent for left lower extremity shin area varicosities disability is denied. Service connection for fascia defect of the muscle group XII is granted. The matter of specially adapted housing and special home adaptation is remanded.

The Veteran's discharge from service was due to a general court-martial conviction for unauthorized absence, resulting in an under conditions other than honorable discharge. The Board found that this constituted a statutory bar to VA benefits as the character of discharge did not meet the exception for insanity at the time of offense.

The Board has remanded the cases for further development due to inadequate examinations and consideration of additional functional loss during flare-ups. The TDIU claim is also remanded as it is inextricably intertwined with the other claims.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's tonsillar cancer is not service connected, as there is no evidence of a nexus between his exposure to herbicide agents and his condition. The Board found significant risk factors such as smoking and alcohol use which reduced the likelihood of a connection.

The Board has remanded the claim for further development due to inadequate VA opinions and non-compliance with previous remand directives.

The Board has remanded the claims for service connection for myalgia and esophageal disability secondary to eosinophilic fasciitis due to insufficient medical opinions addressing the Veteran's submitted evidence.

The Veteran's appeal for payment or medical expense reimbursement for an August 2016 episode of care at a non-VA hospital has been withdrawn, and the claim is dismissed.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for ptosis and neurofibromatosis disabilities, finding that there was no evidence of a pre-existing condition or aggravation during service. The presumption of soundness at entry into service is rebutted by clear and unmistakable evidence.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for macular degeneration and cataracts, finding that there was no evidence to support a relationship between these conditions and active service or any service-connected disability.

The Veteran's back disability, specifically degenerative joint disease of the thoracic spine with mid-thoracic kyphosis, has been granted a 40 percent rating since October 28, 2016.

The Board has remanded the case due to an incomplete evaluation of the Veteran's dental treatment eligibility and a need for further examination to determine if he has a current noncompensably service-connected dental condition.

The Veteran's son is not eligible for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits because he turned 26 years old before the effective date of his father's permanent and total disability rating.

The Board has decided to remand the case due to a lack of clarification on the VA addendum opinion and because there may be additional private treatment records from Dr. L.R. that have not been reviewed.

The Board denied the appellant's request for retroactive payment of Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits prior to September 18, 2009 due to her failure to elect a beginning date within the required 60-day period. The effective date was set at September 18, 2009, which corresponds with the date of VA's decision awarding the Veteran a 100 percent disability rating.

The Board has remanded the case due to inadequate development of the appellant's deceased father's military service status, including whether he served as a guerrilla soldier or under a recognized commissioned officer.