Other conditions Board decisions

The Veteran's active service and Reserve service did not meet the eligibility requirements for VA educational benefits under Chapter 30 (Montgomery GI Bill) or Chapter 34 (Vietnam Era GI Bill). The Board denied his claim as he did not serve on active duty after June 30, 1985, and therefore could not convert his expired Chapter 34 benefits to current Chapter 30 benefits.

The Board has denied the Veteran's request to reopen his claims for service connection for a mental disability and dizziness, including as due to residuals of a head trauma. The evidence submitted did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim.

The Board has determined that the Veteran's current bilateral hip disability is causally related to his active service, and thus grants service connection for this condition.

The VA determined that the appellant's right inguinal hernia does not meet the criteria for a compensable evaluation, as there is no current active symptomatology or other attributable symptoms.

The Board found that the new evidence submitted did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim of recognition as the 'helpless child' of the Veteran based upon permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18.

The Board has determined that the appellant meets the requirements to be recognized as the Veteran's surviving spouse for purposes of establishing entitlement to Department of Veterans Affairs death benefits.

The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a dislocated jaw and chest pain, finding that there was no evidence linking these conditions to service.

The Board found that the Veteran's right hand injury did not occur during service and there is no evidence of old fracture or current disability. The claim for service connection was denied.

The Veteran's appeal is being remanded due to procedural issues, specifically the need for a statement of the case (SOC) on his increased rating claims and potential TDIU claim. The RO must provide an SOC addressing these issues and advise him of the deadline for filing a timely substantive appeal.

The Veteran's mood disorder with depressive features has been found to meet the criteria for a 100 percent rating since November 15, 2007.

The Board denied the Veteran's application to reopen his previously denied claim of service connection for a right leg disability, finding that no new and material evidence had been submitted.

The Board has remanded the case for further development and consideration.

The Board has determined that a VA examination is needed to determine if the appellant has residual brain disability or any brain disorder associated with his in-service head injury. The appeal will be remanded for this purpose.

The Veteran's claim for service connection for tailbone fracture residuals was denied. The rating for epidermophytosis of the feet was granted at a compensable level prior to May 19, 2009 and denied thereafter.

The Board has determined that additional development is needed to determine if the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during his service in Thailand, and whether multiple myeloma was caused by chemical exposures during service. The case is being remanded for these purposes.

The Veteran's non-Hodgkin's lymphoma was not incurred in or aggravated by his active duty service, nor may it be presumed to have been incurred due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board denied the appellant's request for an apportionment of the Veteran's compensation benefits due to the Veteran reasonably discharging his responsibility for child support and because even a minimal level of apportionment would cause undue hardship on the Veteran.

The Board has determined that the Veteran sustained dental trauma to teeth numbered 24 and 25 during service, which is sufficient evidence for granting service connection.

The Board found that the Veteran's diverticulosis was not incurred in service and is unrelated to his service-connected duodenal ulcer disease. As a result, the claim for service connection for diverticulosis was denied.

The Board found that the Veteran's loss of vision was not caused by VA care, but rather due to his own medical condition and surgery. The decision denied compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.