Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the Veteran's acquired psychiatric disorder other than PTSD, including a cognitive disorder and an adjustment disorder, is not attributable to his service or any incident of service.

The Veteran's joint pain, muscle pain, breathing problems, sleep problems, and fatigue are not considered to be related to his service in the Southwest Asia Theater of Operations.,Service connection for these conditions is denied as they do not meet the criteria for presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's left elbow condition is caused by his active duty service and grants service connection for this disability.

The Board has determined that the Veteran does not have a current prostate disorder and therefore, service connection for a genitourinary disorder, claimed as prostate disorder, is denied.

The Board found that the appellant's discharge from service was due to misconduct and will not be considered honorable, thus barring him from VA benefits. The Board also noted that there is no evidence of insanity at the time of the misconduct.

The Board has granted apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation payments to the appellant for the period from March 1, 2004 until November [REDACTED], 2007.

The Veteran has withdrawn his appeal, and the Board does not have jurisdiction to review it.

The Board found that the Veteran's claims for service connection for a visual condition secondary to welder burns and a respiratory condition due to asbestos exposure were not substantiated. The evidence did not establish a current disability related to service, and there was no medical opinion linking any diagnosed conditions to service.

The Veteran requested withdrawal of his appeal regarding the issue of entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities (TDIU). The Board has dismissed the appeal as a result.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for a stomach condition, claimed as a Gulf War undiagnosed illness, is being remanded due to the need for additional development including a VA examination and obtaining updated treatment records.

The Veteran's quadriplegia was caused by VA medical staff's breach of the standard of care in furnishing the May 5, 2010 C5-6 laminectomy and subsequent treatment. The Board found that there were breaches in the standard of care with regard to treatment.

The Veteran's skin disability and right lower extremity blood clot disability were not shown during service or within one year of discharge, and there is no competent medical evidence linking these disabilities to service. Lung tumors, rectal tumors, tumors in the throat, and tumors and nodules on the groin were also not shown during service or within one year of discharge, and there is no competent medical evidence linking these disabilities to service.

The Veteran's appeal for a total disability rating based on individual unemployability has been dismissed due to his death.

The Board found that the preponderance of evidence does not support a finding that left hip avascular necrosis or any left femur bone deterioration were caused by service-connected right knee injury, and thus denied both claims.

The Veteran contends he suffered a stroke and resulting right vision loss after his VA physician took him off the medication Plavix. The case is being remanded to obtain outstanding VA treatment records, including from the Seattle VAMC and Portland VAMC, and to seek an opinion on whether the Veteran's stroke was due to fault on VA's part in discontinuing his Plavix.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded to obtain updated financial data and verify his income and medical expenses. The issue of entitlement to special monthly pension by reason of needing aid and attendance from another person remains under review.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's atrial fibrillation and other heart problems did not begin during or were aggravated by his active duty service, nor are they related to any period of ACDUTRA. The Veteran's pre-existing condition was not worsened by his March 2009 ACDUTRA.

The Veteran's decreased circulation of the right lower extremity has been rated at 20 percent, but not higher. The issue of entitlement to TDIU is also addressed and will be readjudicated in light of this increased rating.

The Board is remanding the case to determine if the appellant and the Veteran had a valid marriage for VA purposes, specifically addressing whether their cohabitation constituted a legally valid form of marriage in Spain.

The Veteran's service was not during a period of war, and therefore he does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.