Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has decided to remand both issues for further development and consideration, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for left foot pain and found that new evidence received since the last denial supports this claim. However, the Board also determined that there is no current disability related to the in-service injury.

The Board denied service connection for otitis media and otitis externa, but granted a 10% rating for bilateral pes planus. The left wrist injury is not considered service-connected.

The Board has reopened the veteran's claim for service connection for enuresis and found that new evidence submitted since the 1997 denial shows inservice treatment. However, the VA examiner concluded that the current enuresis is due to benign prostatic hypertrophy unrelated to service.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for the cause of his death and also denied his DIC under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1318, finding that there was no evidence to support a causal link between any service-connected disability and his death.

The veteran's postoperative residuals of a HNP at L5-S1 with laminotomy, foraminotomy, and discectomy are currently rated as 20% disabling. The VA has granted an increased rating to reflect the severity of his disability.

The veteran's death was not service-connected, and therefore the appellant is denied reimbursement from accrued amounts for burial expenses.

The veteran's claim for special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for aid and attendance is being remanded due to incomplete information regarding his need for personal health services.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals has determined that the appellant's discharge from service was under dishonorable conditions, thus constituting a bar to VA benefits.

The Board found that the reduction of the veteran's disability compensation benefits due to incarceration was not proper and ordered reinstatement of his benefits.

The veteran's spouse and three minor children are seeking an increase in the amount of apportionment from $250 per month to a higher amount. The Board found that the current special apportionment is reasonable given the veteran's limited income and the appellant's reported expenses, and denied the claim for a higher apportionment.

The veteran's appeal to deny his claim for service connection for heel pain was not timely filed, as he did not submit a substantive appeal within one year of the July 2002 rating decision and over sixty days from the issuance of the November 21, 2003 Statement of the Case.

The Board found no evidence that the veteran's cause of death was related to service, including due to herbicide exposure. The claim for service connection for the cause of the veteran's death is denied.

The Board has decided to remand the case for further development, including a VA examination to determine if the veteran's preexisting skin disease worsened during his service.

The veteran's death was not considered for accrued benefits due to the marriage not meeting eligibility requirements. The case is being remanded to issue an SOC addressing this denial.

The Board denied the appellant's request to reopen his claim for basic eligibility for VA benefits due to a lack of new and material evidence, as the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) found no qualifying service in the Philippine Army.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for an earlier effective date for urticaria and separate ratings for tinnitus. The veteran was granted service connection for urticaria in May 2004, but his claim of CUE in a prior denial was not successful. For bilateral tinnitus, he is already receiving the maximum disability rating.

The veteran's appeal is being remanded for a Travel Board hearing at the local RO. The issues include service connection for hip conditions and an increased rating for lumbosacral spine disability.

The veteran's income for the year 2002 exceeded the threshold amount required for eligibility to receive VA medical care without a copayment. The appeal is denied.

The Board has determined that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for an increased rating for paroxysmal atrial fibrillation, and thus denied the claim.