Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the appellant's application to reopen her claim for recognition as an eligible surviving spouse for purposes of receiving DIC benefits due to lack of new and material evidence, despite a legal marriage in March 2007.

The Board has determined that the appellant is entitled to recognition as the surviving spouse of the Veteran for purposes of entitlement to VA benefits, based on her legal marriage and continuous cohabitation with the Veteran up until his death in November 2007.

The Veteran's initial compensable rating for residuals of a left thumb fracture is granted at 10 percent.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings and service connection were denied. The Board found that the evidence did not support a higher rating for varicose veins of the left leg prior to April 24, 2012 or an evaluation in excess of 10 percent thereafter. Service connection was also denied for hypertension and migraine headaches.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration (SSA) records and scheduling a VA examination to assess the severity of his service-connected left foot disability. The TDIU claim is also inextricably intertwined with other issues on appeal.

The Board finds that the Veteran's left eye cataract, status post-surgery, is etiologically related to his active military service and grants service connection for this condition.

The Veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for the addition of his spouse to his service-connected compensation benefits was denied as there is no evidence that he notified VA of his marriage prior to September 28, 2009. The earliest possible effective date is September 28, 2009.

The Board has been notified that the appellant wishes to withdraw their appeal regarding Dependents' Educational Assistance benefits under Chapter 35, Title 38, United States Code. As a result, the appeal is dismissed.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for a VA examination to address his heart disorder, including whether it is related to service-connected PTSD or presumed exposure to herbicides in Vietnam.

The Veteran's service is less than 90 days, which means he does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for nonservice-connected pension benefits.

The Veteran's appeal was denied as he is not entitled to additional compensation based on the ZIP code area of the satellite campus in which he is enrolled.

The Veteran's appeal for education benefits under the Post-9/11 GI Bill was denied because he did not have sufficient qualifying service under Title 10 to meet the requirements for a higher percentage rating.

The Veteran's application for VA education benefits under Chapter 30 of the Montgomery GI Bill was denied as he did not meet the eligibility criteria due to his delimiting date and lack of timely request for extension.

The Board found that the Veteran was a fugitive felon for VA purposes from December 27, 2001 to February 17, 2010 and thus not eligible for VA compensation benefits during this period. The overpayment of $254,232.57 was properly created.

The Board has determined that the appellant cannot be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of DIC benefits due to a final divorce decree prior to the Veteran's death, and thus is not a proper claimant.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits as she did not meet the basic eligibility requirements and her period of eligibility had expired.

The Veteran seeks service connection for spondylosis deformans and arthritis of the back. The VA examiner found no evidence that these conditions are related to his in-service injury, but additional medical records may provide a different opinion.

The Board finds that an effective date earlier than November 9, 2010, for the grant of a TDIU is not warranted as there is no evidence to substantiate the Veteran's claim that he was unable to obtain and maintain substantially gainful employment as a result of his service-connected disabilities prior to the November 9, 2010, date of claim.

The Veteran's claim for an extension of his delimiting date beyond July 20, 2011 to continue receiving education benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill (MGIB) was denied as there were no legal grounds for extending it due to personal circumstances.

The Board has remanded the case due to the need for a Financial Status Report and the opportunity for the Veteran's representative to assist in completing it. The claim will be reconsidered after this additional development.