Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the etiology of the veteran's fatigue.

The veteran's bunion with fracture of the right toe is rated at 10 percent, and her fungal skin condition of the feet does not meet criteria for a compensable rating. The veteran's wrist disabilities are rated as ten percent each.

The Board found no additional disability or causal relationship between the veteran's right inguinal hernia repair and his impotency, thus denying compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151.

The veteran's claim for non-service-connected disability pension was denied as he did not have qualifying active service during a period of war.

The veteran's cause of death, a malignant brain tumor (glioblastoma), was not related to his military service or exposure to herbicides. The Board found no evidence linking the brain tumor to his time in Vietnam.

The Board has determined that the veteran's bursitis of the left hip does not warrant an evaluation in excess of 10 percent, as there is no evidence of functional impairment.

The veteran's claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for residuals of a right femur fracture was denied. The claims for compensable ratings for scars and the reopening of PTSD service connection were also denied.

The Board denied the appellant's claim, finding that his discharge from military service was due to willful and persistent misconduct, which constitutes a bar to VA compensation and pension benefits.

The Board denied the claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death, finding that there was no evidence linking the carcinoma of ampulla of Vater to service or any presumptive exposure to herbicides. The Board concluded that the preponderance of evidence did not support a link between the veteran's service and his fatal cancer.

The Board has determined that the veteran's right eye retinal detachment, status post repair, with blindness is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury of the right eye and grants service connection for this condition.

The Board finds that the appellant's preexisting psoriatic arthritis of the left elbow was aggravated in service, beyond its normal progression. Therefore, service connection is granted for this disability based on aggravation.

The Board has remanded the case for further development to determine if the apportionment awarded in August 2004 was valid and whether MAB is entitled to benefits due to her status as a spouse of the veteran.

The veteran's dysthymic disorder is manifested by symptoms such as anxiety, agitation around others, difficulty in family and occupational relationships, auditory hallucinations, sleep impairment, and continued feelings of depression. The disability results in mild to moderate social and occupational impairment warranting a 30 percent evaluation.

The Board denied the veteran's petition to reopen his claim of service connection for residuals of a neck injury, finding that new and material evidence was not received. The claim remains denied.

The veteran has withdrawn his appeal regarding the removal of B.M.M. as his spouse from VA improved pension benefits effective April 1, 2004.

The Board has determined that an earlier effective date prior to February 2, 2005 for the grant of additional compensation based on the veteran's spouse is not warranted.

The Board found that the veteran does not have essential thrombocythemia due to service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the appellant's discharge from active service was under other than honorable conditions due to willful and persistent misconduct, specifically drug abuse. As a result, his character of discharge bars him from receiving certain VA benefits, including compensation.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not recognized as the deceased veteran's surviving spouse for VA benefits purposes.

The Board denied the appellant's application to reopen his claim of legal entitlement to VA benefits based on recognized service in the Armed Forces of the United States, finding that new and material evidence had not been submitted.