Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied the claim as the appellant did not have qualifying service to be eligible for VA disability benefits.

The Board found that the veteran does not currently have an adjustment disorder with depressed mood or any other psychiatric disorder, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran died in August 2005 due to metastatic bronchogenic carcinoma, which was not caused by a service-connected disability. The Board found no evidence of asbestos exposure during service and concluded that the lung cancer is not related to any service connection.

The veteran's claim for an increased disability rating for service-connected myositis of the thoracic spine is being remanded due to procedural issues and potential need for readjudication under new criteria.

The Board found that the veteran's service-connected splaying metatarsal arches with left hallux valgus, status post left osteotomy, and status post right foot bunion surgery is manifested by pain when standing or walking, stiffness of the big toes, decreased range of motion of the big toes, pain upon plantar flexion of the big toes, the need for orthotic inserts, and flat feet. The disability currently rated at 30 percent.

The Board has determined that the appellant's current low back disorder is not related to service and denied his claim for service connection.

The Board found that the veteran's current right hip arthritis is not related to his service, and there is no evidence of a current right leg disability.,Service connection for both the claimed right hip injury and right leg disability was denied as the medical evidence did not establish a link between these conditions and the veteran's military service.

The Board has determined that the overpayment of nonservice-connected pension benefits was properly created and denied.

The Board has remanded the case to allow for additional development, including obtaining service personnel records and evidence of personal assault stressors. The veteran's claim for PTSD will be reconsidered based on new evidence.

The Board has determined that the veteran's prostate disorder is not related to his active service and has denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination to determine the nature, extent, and etiology of the veteran's claimed right eye condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of bilateral elbow fractures and a pulmonary disability, finding no competent medical nexus evidence linking these conditions to his military service.

The veteran seeks service connection for a colon disorder, which he claims is related to his inservice exposure to herbicides. The Board finds that further examination and evidence are needed to determine the etiology of his current condition.

The Board denied the veteran's claim of service connection for a left testicle disorder, finding that there was no evidence of a chronic condition during service or an applicable presumptive period. The absence of documented complaints and treatment for several years after military discharge precluded establishing continuity of post-service treatment.

The Board dismissed the appellant's claim for an earlier effective date for DIC benefits as her freestanding claim is not authorized by law due to a final decision in 1990 and there was no proper claim based on CUE.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for congestive heart failure and for evaluations of his right shoulder injury. The Board found that there was no evidence linking these conditions to active duty service.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded due to the need for a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge of the Board.

The Board has determined that the case requires remand for further development and consideration of the appellant's claims, including service connection for cause of death and entitlement to accrued benefits and improved death pension benefits.

The Board dismissed the appeal because the appellant did not timely file a Substantive Appeal within the required time frame.

The Board has determined that the evidence is not in favor of service connection for numbness of the arms, jaw fracture, and related numbness. The claim will be remanded to allow further development.