Other conditions Board decisions

The Board has determined that the veteran's son is a helpless child on the basis of permanent incapacity for self-support prior to attaining the age of 18 years.

The veteran's claim for school attendance of his son, J.T.B., from September 2004 to September 2005 is granted as the evidence shows that the information was timely filed in September 2004.

The Board denied the appellant's claims for service connection for the cause of her husband's death and for Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) under Chapter 35, Title 38. The Board found that the veteran's death was not due to a disease or injury incurred in service, and there is no evidence supporting the appellant's contention that his POW experience caused his terminal colon cancer.

The Board finds that the veteran's terminal bladder cancer, which caused his death in June 1992, was likely due to exposure to herbicides during his service in Vietnam. As a result, the claim for service connection for cause of death is granted.

The Board has determined that the veteran's OPCA is not related to his service, including exposure to Agent Orange. The evidence does not support a finding of a nexus between the veteran's brain disorder and herbicide exposure.

The veteran's increased evaluations for his psychophysiological musculoskeletal disorder and deformity at D12 to L1 have been granted, with the current ratings of 60 percent and 20 percent respectively.

The Board has granted service connection for a bilateral hip disorder, finding that the condition is directly related to military service.

The veteran's claim for a higher rating for left (minor extremity) distal ulnar fracture residuals was denied. However, the temporary total disability rating based on convalescence for surgery performed in April 2005 for left carpal tunnel syndrome was granted.

The Board granted a 20 percent rating for the veteran's L5-S1 disc protrusion with scoliosis, effective from December 2006. The condition was rated based on orthopedic manifestations only.

The Board has remanded the case for further development, including obtaining an opinion on whether a current dental disorder was aggravated by service-connected schizoaffective disorder with associated hypothyroidism.

The Board has determined that the veteran does not have a current disability due to squamous cell carcinoma of the nasal septum, which is related to service or exposure to Agent Orange. The claim for service connection is denied.

The Board has determined that the appellant is not recognized as the common-law wife of the veteran for purposes of Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC) benefits.

The Board denied the veteran's claims for service connection for excessive weight gain due to skunk spray contamination, an initial compensable rating for adjustment disorder with anxiety, and a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disability.

The Board denied the appellant's request for apportionment of the veteran's VA compensation benefits, finding that the veteran was reasonably discharging his responsibility for supporting his children and there was no hardship warranting a special apportionment.

The Board found that the veteran's post-radiation incontinence was not caused by VA carelessness, negligence, or error. The claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 is denied.

The Board has determined that the veteran's current right ear disability is not related to service, and thus denied his claim for service connection.

The veteran's request for an increased evaluation for his service-connected pterygium, right eye is being remanded due to the need for a new examination and consideration of additional evidence.

The Board has determined that the appellant does not have valid military service, as certified by the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC), and therefore is ineligible for VA benefits.

The veteran claims service connection for a lung-related disorder due to asbestos exposure during his military service. The Board has determined that there is insufficient evidence to make a decision and has ordered the case back to the RO for further development.

The Board has remanded this case due to scheduling issues, and a Travel Board hearing will be scheduled at the RO in Louisville.