Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's claim for service connection for lung disability is being remanded due to the need for additional development regarding his alleged asbestos exposure in service. The case will be returned to the Board after further review.

The Veteran's service-connected back disability has been manifested by pain and limitation of motion, but not to the extent that it warrants a higher rating.

The VA determined that the appellant's spouse did not have qualifying service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces during World War II. Therefore, the appellant is denied entitlement to a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

The Board has determined that the appellant did not have requisite service to entitle him to payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund due to a negative certification by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).

The Board has determined that the Veteran's death was not caused by or a result of service-connected conditions, and therefore, DIC benefits under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318 are denied.

The Board denied the Veteran's claim for compensation for missing wisdom teeth and service connection for his right shoulder disability. The rating for his right shoulder condition remains at 20 percent.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed right leg skin disability. The issues of service connection for a skin disability of the right leg, an increased rating for left leg disability, and service connection for seizures are also being remanded.

The Board found that the appellant did not have recognized service in the United States Armed Forces, as certified by the National Personnel Records Center. Therefore, she is not eligible for a one-time payment from the FVEC fund.

The Board has remanded the case for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the VAMC in Iron Mountain, Michigan, or at the RO if unavailable.

The Veteran withdrew his appeal for higher disability ratings for his neurogenic bladder during a Travel Board Hearing in June 2013.

The Veteran's service is not considered active duty during a period of war, and his National Guard service is not considered active duty. Therefore, he does not meet the legal requirements for nonservice-connected VA pension benefits.

The Board has determined that the Veteran did not timely file a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) within one year after receiving the December 2009 rating decision denying entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund, and thus the appeal is denied.

The Veteran's squamas cell carcinoma of the neck is being remanded for further examination and development due to insufficient medical evidence on file.

The Board found that the Veteran's disability exhibited by mitral valve prolapse did not have its clinical onset in service and is not otherwise related to active duty. Service connection was denied.

The Veteran's application for Service-Disabled Veterans Insurance (RH) was denied as it was not submitted within the two-year period following his service-connected disability of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL).

The Veteran does not have a lung disorder that is etiologically related to active service.

The Board has remanded the case for further development due to an undeliverable address, and the Veteran's current mailing address must be verified and notified of the Supplemental Statement of the Case.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine if the Veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation during service and whether his cause of death, Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML), is related to such exposure. The case will be remanded for further review after obtaining this information.

The Board has decided that the Veteran's mild-moderate dry eyes are not service-connected, as they do not meet the criteria for direct service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining updated VA treatment records and arranging for a supplemental opinion from the examiner who conducted the May 2013 VA examination.