Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's service did not meet the eligibility requirements for Chapter 30 educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill due to insufficient length of active duty and lack of other qualifying factors.

The VA examiner determined that the current heart murmur is less likely than not related to service, given the Veteran's age and lifestyle. The examination report did not mention the in-service diagnosis of a split first apical sound.

The Veteran's child, J.C., is not entitled to an apportionment of VA disability compensation in excess of $300 on a monthly basis due to the financial hardship it would cause for the Veteran.

The Veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected right eye cataract was denied. The VA found that the evidence did not support a rating in excess of 30 percent, as there is no anatomical loss or visual impairment warranting such a higher rating.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board found that the overpayment of $10,091.10 was validly created due to administrative error and the Veteran's knowledge or should-have-known status regarding his son receiving DEA benefits.

The Veteran's appeal is remanded due to the need for a new VA examination and updated treatment records. The case will also be reviewed for possible assignment of an extraschedular evaluation.

The Veteran's appeal for service connection for diverticulitis, rib pain, and TDIU was dismissed due to withdrawal. The Board granted the Veteran's claim of service connection for psoriatic arthritis (claimed as arthritis of hands, feet, left shoulder, left arm, left hip, and toes).

The Board finds that the Veteran is competent to handle disbursement of VA funds, and grants his claim.

The Board has remanded the case due to a lack of clear authority for verifying service under 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c). The Appellant's claim will be reconsidered after attempting verification of their claimed service.

The Board found that the appellant's unreimbursed medical expenses for custodial care from August 31, 2009, are deductible from her income and thus reduce the amount of her VA death pension with aid and attendance allowance.

The appellant is not legally eligible for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund based on her father's military service.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining treatment records and service personnel records. The focus is on whether the Veteran's hepatic failure and cholangiocarcinoma are related to his presumed herbicide exposure in Vietnam or Thailand.

The Veteran's claim for accrued benefits was granted, but the effective date is set to March 1, 2010. The decision denies additional accrued benefits as there are no legal grounds for payment prior to March 1, 2010.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for DIC, death pension, and/or accrued benefits based on recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran due to her not meeting the legal requirements for such status.

The Veteran's request for a hearing was withdrawn due to his absence. The case is being returned to the Board for further action as missing documents need to be obtained and associated with the claims file.

The Veteran's lung disability is not related to his service, including exposure to asbestos. The Board finds that the preponderance of evidence does not support a finding of service connection for his claimed lung disability.

The Board has determined that the appellant is the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of entitlement to Dependency & Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits due to mutual consent separation by both parties.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to conflicting evidence regarding the Veteran's current skin rash and its relation to service. The Veteran is requested to provide more recent medical evidence or testimony.

The Veteran's appeal has been dismissed as the appellant withdrew their request for a hearing and did not contest the decision.