Other conditions Board decisions

The veteran's appeal for an extension of educational benefits under Chapter 30 was denied as there are no applicable provisions in the law that would extend the number of months of educational assistance.

The Board has remanded the case for further action, including scheduling a video conference hearing at the RO.

The Board has granted a 10 percent evaluation for the service-connected pilonidal cyst, effective from December 2, 2005.

The Board dismissed the motion alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in their December 18, 2006 decision that denied the moving party's claim for benefits as she had not submitted new and material evidence to reopen her claim of whether she is recognized as the surviving spouse of the veteran for VA benefits purposes.

The veteran's throat cancer is presumed to be related to his service in Vietnam, but the Board needs additional information from the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP) regarding the primary site of the cancer before it metastasized.

The veteran's application for enrollment in the VA healthcare system was denied as he does not meet the basic eligibility requirements due to his status as a non-service-connected veteran and the financial information provided.

The veteran's appeal for a higher rating for his right tibial tubercle fracture was dismissed due to the death of the appellant.

The Board found that the residuals of shell fragment wound to the right leg do not warrant an initial rating higher than 10 percent.

The veteran is entitled to an effective date of March 5, 1997, for the grant of TDIU due to his service-connected schizo-affective disorder.

The Board found that the appellant's application for DIC benefits was not received within one year of her husband's death, and thus denied an earlier effective date of August 1, 1996.

The Board denied the veteran's request for a waiver to recover an overpayment of disability benefits, finding that recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Board has remanded the case due to a need for further examination and consideration of new evidence, including VA Adjudication Manual and Manual Rewrite provisions regarding asbestos exposure.

The Board has determined that the veteran's hypertensive cardiovascular disease with residuals of a myocardial infarction was not incurred in or aggravated by active service, and service connection may not be presumed to have been incurred in service based on the one-year presumption for a chronic disease.

The Board found that the veteran's right foot condition was not caused by VA medical treatment, and thus denied compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for his right foot condition.,For the left foot condition, the evidence is in approximate balance as to indicating a connection between the May 1988 surgery at the Shreveport VAMC and the veteran's current disability. The Board granted compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for his left foot condition.

The Board granted a separate 10 percent evaluation for damage to Muscle Group XXII, in addition to the already acknowledged damage to MG I of the right and left sides, and MG XXIII.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development due to a request for a Travel Board hearing.

The veteran's claim for service connection for a chronic foot disorder was denied because he failed to report for a scheduled VA examination without good cause.

The Board denied the claim of service connection for the cause of the veteran's death based on exposure to ionizing radiation in service, finding that there was no evidence of such exposure and thus no basis for presumptive service connection. The claim was reviewed under direct service connection criteria but still denied.

The Board has determined that new and material evidence has been received to reopen the veteran's claims of service connection for residuals of shrapnel wound, right foot; residuals of shrapnel wound, left leg; and arthritis. The case is remanded for further development.

The veteran's chronic nephritis is currently rated at 80 percent, but the Board finds that his disability picture does not warrant a higher rating.