Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's educational assistance claim under the Post-9/11 GI Bill was denied because his ROTC service, which he used to satisfy a commission obligation, is not considered active duty for purposes of Chapter 33 benefits. The Board found that the Veteran did not meet the eligibility requirements due to his ROTC service being excluded from creditable active duty.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of educational assistance benefits was created due to VA's administrative error and is therefore invalid.

The Veteran's child is not eligible for an extension of DEA benefits beyond her 26th birthday due to the lack of suspension of education program, despite circumstances that may have prevented attendance.

The Veteran's daughter was not enrolled in an eligible educational program as of the delimiting date, and thus her request for an extension of the delimiting date is denied.

The appellant was not the Veteran's surviving spouse at the time of his death, and therefore is not eligible for VA death benefits.

The Board has remanded the case due to the Veteran's inability to appear for a scheduled video conference hearing. The case will be returned to the RO for scheduling another hearing.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA and SSA medical records, scheduling a VA examination, and readjudicating the claims.

The Board found that the Veteran did not have a chronic or recurrent urinary disorder during service and does not currently have one. Therefore, they denied his claim for service connection.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for vitiligo is being remanded due to the need to obtain his service treatment and personnel records from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC).

The Board found that the Veteran does not have a current neurological disorder of the upper and lower extremities attributable to his military service, including any immunizations/vaccinations received in service.

The appellant has withdrawn the appeal, and thus there are no allegations of errors for appellate consideration.

The Board found that the Veteran's visual impairment was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service and is not otherwise shown to be related to service.

The Board found that the overpayment of VA educational assistance benefits was not properly created due to administrative error, and thus granted the appeal.

The VA has determined that the Veteran's right and left hand essential tremors are not productive of more than mild impairment, thus denying his claims for higher initial ratings.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's residuals of a shell fragment wound to the abdomen are productive of, at most, moderate disability and thus warrant a 10 percent rating.

The Board has decided to remand the case for additional development, including obtaining outstanding medical records and clarifying the Veteran's service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations.

The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred for emergency treatment of a pulmonary embolism from February 2, 2009 through February 16, 2009 are denied as he does not meet the criteria for reimbursement under VA regulations.

The Board has ordered additional development to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's sleep disorder, including whether it is related to military service or a separate condition. The Veteran will need to provide releases for private records from Borgess Medical Center and updated VA treatment records. A new VA examination will be scheduled to address these issues.

The Veteran's non-service-connected pension benefits were terminated due to excessive income, and the claim for reinstatement is denied.

The Board has remanded the claim for further development due to insufficient rationale in a previous medical opinion and the need to obtain additional treatment records, SSA records, and an addendum opinion.