Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the Veteran's treatment at St. Edward Mercy Medical Center on January 11, 2008 did not meet the criteria for payment or reimbursement due to lack of emergency condition and non-feasibility of VA facility.

The Board found that the Veteran's pre-existing left jaw injury was not aggravated by service, and therefore denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has granted the appellant's claim for a benefits payment rate of 100 percent under the Post-9/11 GI Bill, finding that he completed more than 36 months of aggregate, honorable, and creditable active duty service after September 10, 2001.

The Board found that the Veteran's Reiter's syndrome pre-existed his entry into service and did not increase in severity during service, thus denying service connection.

The Veteran's service-connected malaria is not currently active or productive of any current residuals, and therefore does not warrant a compensable rating.

The Veteran's right biceps muscle disability has been evaluated at a 10 percent rating since the initial grant of service connection. The current evidence does not support an increase in this evaluation.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's duodenal ulcer was incurred during active military service, resolving all reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran.

The Veteran's service-connected residual scar of the left lower lip, resulting from squamous cell carcinoma and basal cell carcinoma, is currently rated at 10 percent. The Board finds that this rating adequately reflects the severity of his condition.

The Board found that the Appellant's discharge was under conditions other than honorable due to willful and persistent misconduct, specifically his AWOL period. As a result, his character of discharge is considered dishonorable, which bars him from receiving VA benefits.

The Board found no evidence of a current right ear disability and denied service connection for dyshidrosis. The claim for service connection for a right ear disability was also denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an increased DIC rate based on her adoption of her grandson, finding that he did not meet the legal requirements to be considered a dependent child under VA regulations.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to verify the Veteran's service in Vietnam and Thailand, as well as his exposure to herbicides. The case will be remanded for these purposes.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining VA medical records and scheduling a VA examination to determine if the Veteran's lung disability is related to service exposure to asbestos. The claim will be reconsidered after these actions.

The Veteran's appeal seeking entitlement to additional educational benefits under the Post-9/10 GI Bill is dismissed as his irrevocable election of education benefits has not been made.

The Board has determined that the appellant waived her right to Civil Service Retirement income, which was previously considered countable income for VA purposes. As a result, her death pension benefits were reduced accordingly.

The Veteran's discharge was due to a pre-existing foot condition that was service-connected, meeting the criteria for educational assistance under Chapter 33 of Title 38.

The Board found that the appellant did not have qualifying service with the United States Armed Forces and therefore does not meet the criteria for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

The Veteran's claim for payment or reimbursement of unauthorized medical services rendered at Gulf Coast Medical Center from April 6, 2009 to April 7, 2009 was denied as the condition had stabilized and VA facilities were not feasibly available.

The Board denied legal entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund due to lack of service in the United States Armed Forces, as certified by NPRC.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal, and thus has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim.