Other conditions Board decisions

The Board found that the veteran's stiff-man syndrome was not incurred in or aggravated by service, including exposure to herbicides. The evidence did not support a finding of connection between his current condition and military service.

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

The veteran's appeal is being remanded to the RO for additional development, including obtaining medical records and scheduling a VA examination. The case will be returned to the Board after these actions are completed.

The Board found that the veteran's dysthymia did not meet the criteria for a higher disability rating, as it did not cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected disabilities have resulted in loss of use of his lower extremities, which qualifies him for financial assistance in purchasing an automobile and/or adaptive equipment.

The Board found that it was not factually ascertainable prior to June 7, 2004 that the veteran had degenerative joint disease in his left elbow. Therefore, an effective date earlier than June 7, 2004 for a 10 percent rating for the degenerative joint disease of the left elbow is denied.

The veteran's initial claim for a higher rating for his small bowel disability was granted, but he remains denied service connection for residuals of cold injury.

The Board has granted service connection for arthritis of the left middle finger and remanded the issue of an increased rating for residuals of a fracture of the left middle finger.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not a 'child' of the veteran for purposes of VA death benefits, and thus the claim is denied.

The Board found that the residuals of the right ring finger injury, characterized by ankylosis and osteoarthritic changes with associated pain and swelling, do not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under VA's rating schedule.

The veteran's application for vocational rehabilitation and employment services was denied as he did not qualify for an extension beyond the basic period of eligibility due to his failure to apply within the required timeframe.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for an initial rating in excess of 20 percent for right acromioclavicular joint arthrosis, finding that the evidence did not support a higher evaluation based on current range of motion findings.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for an apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits, finding that no apportionment was warranted due to the divorce and the veteran providing support through a lump sum alimony payment.

The Board denied the veteran's widow's request for an earlier effective date for accrued benefits due to aid and attendance, finding that the claim was not received until November 2, 2004, which is later than when entitlement arose.

The Board found no evidence of an inguinal hernia in service and denied the claim as there was no medical nexus between the current diagnosis and active duty.

Throughout the rating period on appeal, the veteran's left heel disability has been productive of complaints of ankle and foot pain and swelling; objectively, tenderness and slight limitation on motion was demonstrated. The criteria for entitlement to a compensable evaluation have not been met.

The Board found that the award of death pension benefits in October 2003 was clearly and unmistakably erroneous due to the decedent's service with the Philippine Scouts, which occurred after 1945. As a result, the appellant was not eligible for death pension benefits as a matter of law.

The veteran's claim for educational benefits under Chapter 30 of Title 38, United States Code is denied as he does not meet the eligibility requirements.

The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for DJD with facet hypertrophy at L4-5 and L5-S1, finding no evidence of a chronic disability in service or within one year after separation. The Board also found that there was insufficient continuity of symptomatology to support a finding of chronicity.

The Board denied reopening the claim for service connection due to lack of new and material evidence, despite the veteran's assertions.