Other conditions Board decisions

The Board denied an increase in DIC benefits, including a higher rate for aid and attendance, as the appellant did not meet the legal requirements to receive such additional compensation.

The Board has determined that the veteran's claim for an earlier effective date for service connection for uterine fibroids with metrorrhagia, status post partial hysterectomy, is denied as there was no current disability at the time of her July 1995 claim and the earliest possible effective date is October 16, 2003.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have varicose veins of the right lower extremity, and there is no evidence showing such condition during service or within one year post-service. Therefore, service connection for this condition cannot be granted.

The VA denied the veteran's request for an increased evaluation of his left hip iliotibial band syndrome, currently rated at 10 percent.

The Board denied the appellant's claim for full payment of VA Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits while incarcerated due to a felony conviction, as the law limits compensation during incarceration for such cases.

The veteran's claim for special monthly compensation due to the need for aid and attendance of another person or being permanently housebound is remanded as his disability picture has changed, requiring a new VA examination.

The Board has determined that the veteran is entitled to a 30 percent evaluation for his service-connected bilateral defective hearing from November 28, 2000. The issue of an increased rating in excess of 30 percent remains on appeal. For his service-connected bilateral tinnitus, the maximum schedular evaluation (10%) has been granted.

The Board has determined that the evidence submitted since the September 1999 administrative decision is not new and material, thus denying the appellant's request to reopen her claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits.

The Board has determined that the veteran's urticaria does not meet the criteria for a rating greater than 10 percent, as it is responsive to treatment with antihistamines or sympathomimetics and does not require intermittent systemic immunosuppressive therapy.

The veteran died of causes unrelated to service-connected disabilities, and therefore the claim for service connection for the cause of death is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's service-connected left testicle removal does not warrant an increased evaluation as his right testicle is present and not non-functional.

The veteran withdrew his appeal regarding the increased evaluation for service-connected bilateral sensorineural-type deafness.

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

The Board found that the reduction of the disability evaluation for adenocarcinoma of prostate from 100% to 40% was proper. The RO increased the evaluation to 60%, effective April 3, 2006, but did not find an increase in severity beyond this level.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for a higher rating for his right eye disability and service connection for left eye disability, finding that there was no evidence of any left eye disability or that it is related to his service-connected right eye disability.

The veteran does not meet the basic eligibility criteria for educational assistance under Chapter 30, Title 38, United States Code.

The Board has denied the veteran's claims for service connection for a bilateral foot condition and left indirect inguinal hernia condition, finding no evidence of current disabilities or that any pre-existing conditions were aggravated by service. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1151 for residuals of colon cancer surgery was also denied.

The Board found no evidence of service connection for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and denied the claim.

The Board determined that the overpayment in this case did not result from bad faith on the part of the veteran, and thus waiver of recovery of the overpayment was not precluded by law. The issue will be addressed again under the standard of equity and good conscience.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not entitled to proceeds from the veteran's NSLI policy due to a lack of valid beneficiary designation.