Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's TMJ syndrome has been rated at 20 percent since January 23, 2008.

The case is being remanded due to incomplete information regarding the Veteran's TDY assignments in Southeast Asia. Further development, including obtaining specific details of his TDY destinations and related records, is required.

The VA determined that the Veteran's current respiratory disorder, including residuals of pneumonia, is not related to his military service.

The Veteran's claims for increased ratings for residuals of gunshot wounds to the left thigh and gastritis with peptic ulcer disease were denied. The VA determined that the current severity levels do not warrant higher ratings.,Specifically, the VA found that the Veteran's muscle injuries are classified as moderate for the left posterior thigh and moderately severe for the left anterior thigh, which do not meet criteria for a higher rating.

The Veteran's claims for an increased evaluation for narcolepsy and TDIU are being remanded due to the need for additional development.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's service does not meet the requirements for nonservice-connected death pension benefits due to his service in the Philippine Scouts, which is not considered qualifying active service for VA pension benefits.

The Board finds that the Veteran's current complaints of joint pain are not related to his active service and does not warrant service connection for arthritis, multiple joints.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded for additional development, including a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed cardiovascular disorder.

The Veteran's right eye injury has healed without active pathology, and his current visual acuity is no worse than 20/400 in the service-connected eye. The Board finds that a rating in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a right eye injury does not meet the criteria under VA regulations.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to address the Veteran's claims, including obtaining medical records and scheduling examinations for a neurological examination of numbness in hands and an ophthalmology examination for left eye disorder.

The Board has remanded the case due to unresolved issues regarding the appellant's spousal status and her claim for service connection for the cause of death. The appeal will be addressed after these issues are resolved.

The Board finds that the Veteran's 2006 medical expense report for non-service connected pension benefits was timely received by VA prior to December 31, 2007.

The Veteran's residuals of a chip fracture of the proximal end of the right fifth metacarpal with periarticular osteopenia have not more nearly approximated favorable ankylosis of the wrist, and his disability is rated at 10 percent.

The Board has remanded the case due to the appellant's failure to appear for a scheduled travel board hearing, and she requested another hearing. The case is now pending with instructions to schedule her for a personal hearing.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for recognition as the Veteran's surviving spouse, finding that her divorce from the Veteran was valid and she did not meet the requirements to be recognized as his surviving spouse.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims of entitlement to service connection for BPH status post transurethral resection and a skin condition, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to his service or exposure to herbicides. The appeal is dismissed.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection for the cause of the Veteran's death due to new and material evidence provided by a private physician, which supports the appellant's contention that the Veteran's service-connected gunshot wounds led to his development of peptic ulcer disease and ultimately gastric carcinoma.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have qualifying active service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including recognized guerrillas, in the Armed Forces of the United States. Therefore, he is not eligible for a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund.

The appeal is being remanded due to the appellant seeking a videoconference hearing. The Veteran was satisfied with the apportionment decision and did not request one, but the appellant still wants her case heard before the Board.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a lack of clarity in the Veteran's claims and evidence. The issue is whether forfeiture of VA benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 6104(a) was proper.