Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's preexisting left eye condition did not worsen during service and is not otherwise related to his active duty. Therefore, he was denied entitlement to service connection for blindness in the left eye.

The appellant is not eligible for VA DIC benefits as a remarried widow of the veteran, and her claim fails due to legal preclusion.

The Board found that the veteran's right arm disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by active military service, nor may it be presumed to have been incurred in service. The claim for a left foot disorder due to nerve damage is addressed in the REMAND portion of this decision.

The Board found that the veteran's cause of death, adenocarcinoma of the pancreas and acute myelogenous leukemia, were not caused or contributed to by any service-connected disability. The claim was denied as there is no evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran's claim for a waiver of overpayment in the amount of $2173.53 was denied by the Board, as recovery would not be against equity and good conscience.

The Board has remanded the case for a new VA examination and to ensure that all notification requirements have been satisfied. The veteran's claim will be reconsidered based on the additional evidence.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current diagnosis of herpes simplex is not related to service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found no evidence of a service-connected dental condition or disability, and thus denied the veteran's claim for service connection.

The veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for a left elbow/forearm disorder was denied. The VA found that the evidence did not support a higher rating based on functional loss or limitation of motion.

The veteran's VA pension benefits were properly terminated effective November 1, 2003 due to excess countable income. His countable income has exceeded the maximum applicable rate since that date.

The Board has determined that the reduction of the disability rating for service connected residuals of laryngeal cancer from 100% to 10% was proper, effective May 1, 2006. The veteran's service-connected residuals of laryngeal cancer have been manifested by hoarseness and inflammation of the cords or mucous membrane since May 1, 2006.

The Board found that the veteran's cause of death, esophageal cancer, was not incurred or aggravated by his military service and could not be presumed to have been caused by exposure to herbicides. The preponderance of evidence did not support a finding that the esophageal cancer was related to his time in Vietnam.

The Board found that the veteran's invasive papillary cell carcinoma of the bladder was not incurred in or aggravated by service, nor may it be presumed to have been incurred therein.

The veteran's claim for retroactive educational benefits from September 10, 2003 to May 5, 2004 is denied as the earliest commencing date under VA regulations is one year prior to receipt of his application on May 6, 2005.

The Board found that the appellant is not entitled to reinstatement of VA death pension benefits due to her remarriage, which was terminated by divorce in November 1992. The appellant's remarriage ended her status as the surviving spouse of the veteran and thus terminated her eligibility for death pension benefits.

The Board has granted service connection for an eye disorder (conjunctivitis) but denied service connection for a respiratory disorder.

The veteran's claim for non-service-connected pension benefits is denied as he did not have qualifying wartime service.

The veteran's claims for service connection for photophobia and dizziness and lightheadedness were denied, while the claim for an increased rating for PTSD with depression was also denied. The veteran is not entitled to a higher initial rating for his PTSD.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an extension of the delimiting date for education assistance benefits under Chapter 30, finding no legal authority to award such benefits.

The Board has determined that the appellant's notice of disagreement was untimely and has remanded the case for further review, including scheduling a Travel Board hearing.