Other conditions Board decisions

The VA determined that the veteran's tonsillitis does not meet the criteria for a compensable rating, as there is no objective medical evidence of hoarseness or inflammation of cords and mucous membrane. The Board found his symptoms to be consistent with allergic rhinitis rather than tonsillitis.

The veteran's claim for an increased evaluation of his service-connected depressive neurosis was denied. The appeal is not about the back disability, and thus no rating or effective date is assigned.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for groin pain and abscesses, as well as a disability manifested by snoring and talking in his sleep. The Board found no chronic disability related to these conditions.

The Board has remanded the case to allow for further examination and development, but the claim remains denied as the RO assigned a 30% rating which is not in excess of what was initially requested.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for dizziness and memory loss, as well as his claim for an initial disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent for type II diabetes mellitus. The evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were incurred or aggravated by military service.

The Board has determined that the veteran's cognitive disorder with memory loss is due to an undiagnosed illness and incurred during his service in the Persian Gulf War, granting service connection.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for death pension benefits as she was not considered the veteran's surviving spouse at the time of his death.

The Board denied the veteran's claims of service connection for residuals of a right great toe injury, stomach condition, and head injury. The decision also noted that the veteran did not have PTSD.

The Board has remanded the case for additional development, including obtaining service personnel records and scheduling a VA examination. The appellant's claim of spinal cord damage with partial loss of use of legs and balance difficulties is being reviewed to determine if it is related to his military service.

The Board has remanded the case for scheduling a Travel Board hearing and will return it to the Board after the hearing.

The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient evidence regarding the veteran's poliomyelitis preexisting service and whether it was aggravated by active duty. The RO is instructed to search for additional medical records from South Dakota Department of Human Services, Division of Rehabilitation Services and schedule a VA examination to determine the etiology of the veteran's poliomyelitis.

The former service member's character of discharge due to willful and persistent misconduct bars him from receiving VA benefits, as his period of service is considered one continuous period.

The veteran's request to start an extending period of eligibility for education assistance benefits under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code on June 28, 2004 was denied because he did not respond within the required time frame as specified in VA regulations.

The veteran is seeking service connection for a chronic skin disorder, specifically boils. The Board has determined that further development is needed to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed condition.

The Board has determined that the veteran's lipomas are not related to his service or exposure to herbicides, and thus denied the claim for service connection.

The Board has determined that the necessary records have not been associated with the claims file and has therefore remanded the case for further action.

The Board has reopened the claim for service connection due to new and material evidence, but will remand it for further development before readjudicating on the merits.

The Board denied the appellant's claim as she was not married to the veteran at the time of his death, and therefore does not meet the requirements for recognition as a surviving spouse.

The veteran's appeal for an extension of her Chapter 30 entitlement was denied as the law does not allow more than 36 months of full-time basic educational assistance.

The appellant's claim for restoration of DIC benefits is denied as she did not meet the legal requirements due to her remarriage after age 57, which occurred after December 16, 2004.