Citation Nr: 0810719 Decision Date: 04/01/08 Archive Date: 04/14/08 DOCKET NO. 06-36 303 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a bilateral foot disorder. 2. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a right ankle disorder. 3. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a left ankle disorder. 4. Entitlement to an effective date earlier than July 12, 2005 for the grant of service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, a right ankle disorder, and a left ankle disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and Witness ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD D. Johnson, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from September 1974 to January 1976. This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2005 decision rendered by the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), which granted service connection and a 10 percent rating for a bilateral foot disorder, and granted service connection for a right and left ankle disorder, assigning each a 10 percent rating. All evaluations were made effective from July 12, 2005. Thereafter, in a September 2006 rating action, the RO increased the right and left ankle disability evaluations to 20 percent each, effective from July 12, 2005. The veteran continues to disagree with the evaluations and effective dates assigned. The veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing in February 2008. A transcript of the hearing is of record. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran's bilateral foot disorder manifests with pain, swelling, rigid pes cavus, hammertoes, and hallux valgus; there is no evidence of marked contraction of the plantar fascia with dropped forefoot, very painful callosities, or marked varus deformity. 2. Both the right and left ankle disorders manifest with pain, swelling, and marked limitation of motion, without ankylosis. 3. The veteran is receiving the maximum schedular evaluation for his left and right ankle disorders. 4. A claim of entitlement to service connection for a bilateral foot disorder was received on September 25, 1992. 5. The RO denied service connection for a bilateral foot disorder in a February 25, 1993 rating decision. The veteran was notified of this decision in March 1993. He did not appeal and the decision became final. 6. The veteran submitted a new claim of service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, a right ankle disorder and a left ankle disorder that was received at the RO on July 12, 2005. 7. Prior to July 12, 2005, there is no claim for service connection for a right ankle disorder and a left ankle disorder, or any communication that could be considered an informal claim for those disabilities. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an initial disability rating of 30 percent for a bilateral foot disorder have been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5278 (2007). 2. The criteria for an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a right ankle disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271 (2007). 3. The criteria for an initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a left ankle disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271 (2007). 4. An effective date earlier than July 12, 2005 for the grant of service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, a right ankle disorder, and a left ankle disorder is not warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(r) (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Upon receipt of a complete or substantially complete application for benefits, VA is required to notify the claimant and his or her representative, if any, of any information, and any medical or lay evidence, that is necessary to substantiate the claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103(a) (West 2002 & Supp. 2005); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2004); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). Proper VCAA notice must inform the claimant of any information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate the claim. The veteran should be informed as to what portion of the information and evidence VA will seek to provide, and what portion of such the claimant is expected to provide. Proper notification must also invite the claimant to provide any evidence in his possession that pertains to the claim in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1). These notice requirements apply to all five elements of a service connection claim: veteran status, existence of a disability; a connection between the veteran's service and the disability; degree of disability; and the effective date of the disability. See Dingess v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (2006). Such notice must be provided to a claimant before the initial unfavorable decision on a claim for VA benefits is issued by the agency of original jurisdiction. Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112, 119 (2004); see also Mayfield v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 103 (2005). The instant appeal, for an initial increased disability rating and an earlier effective date for a bilateral foot and ankle disorder, arises from the veteran's disagreement with the initial evaluation following the grant of service connection. Courts have held that once service connection is granted the claim is substantiated, additional notice is not required, and any defect in the notice is not prejudicial. Hartman v. Nicholson, 483 F.3d 1311 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Dunlap v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 112 (2007). As to VA's duty to assist, VA has associated the veteran's private and VA treatment records with the claims folder; and in October 2005 and August 2006, he was afforded formal VA orthopedic examinations. The Board finds that no additional assistance is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000), aff'd 281 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001). For the foregoing reasons, the Board therefore finds that VA has satisfied its duty to notify (each of the four content requirements) and the duty to assist pursuant to the VCAA. See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102 and 5103 (West 2002 & Supp. 2006); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159(b), 20.1102 (2006); Pelegrini, supra; Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). Increased Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by the application of a schedule of ratings, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155; 38 C.F.R., Part 4. Where there is a question as to which of two disability evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation is to be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating is to be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. The veteran's entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations. See generally 38 C.F.R. 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). After careful consideration of the evidence, any reasonable doubt remaining is resolved in favor of the veteran. See generally, 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Where, as here, the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial evaluation assigned, evaluation of the medical evidence since the grant of service connection and consideration of the appropriateness of "staged rating" is required. Fenderson v. West 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). The veteran is presumed to be seeking the maximum benefit allowed by law and regulation. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35, (1993). In determining the degree of limitation of motion, consideration is given to each of the following: the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 concerning lack of normal endurance, functional loss due to pain, and pain on use and during flare-ups; the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 concerning weakened movement, excess fatigability, and incoordination; and the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 concerning the effects of the disability on the veteran's ordinary activity. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). Bilateral Foot Disorder Here, the RO granted service connection for a bilateral foot disorder and awarded this disability a single 10 percent disability evaluation, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5276, effective from July 12, 2005. The veteran contends that he is entitled to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for his bilateral foot disorder. Under Diagnostic Code 5276, for rating flatfeet, a 50 percent rating is warranted for bilateral disability when the disability is "pronounced", and manifest by marked pronation, extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces of the feet, marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the tendo achillis on manipulation, not improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. When the symptoms are characterized as "severe", with objective evidence of marked deformity (pronation, abduction, etc.), pain on manipulation and use accentuated, indication of swelling on use, and characteristic callosities, a 30 percent evaluation is for application for bilateral disability. Moderate disability (whether bilateral or unilateral), characterized by weight- bearing line over or medial to great toe, inward bowing of the tendo achillis, and pain on manipulation and use of the feet, warrants a 10 percent rating. Other Diagnostic Codes are also potentially applicable for rating the veteran's service-connected foot disorder. For example, under Diagnostic Code 5278, (for evaluating claw foot (pes cavus)), a 50 percent rating is for application for bilateral disability manifest by marked contraction of plantar fascia with dropped forefoot, all toes being hammer toes, very painful callosities, and marked varus deformity. With all toes tending to dorsiflexion, with limitation of dorsiflexion at ankle to right angle, shortened plantar fascia, and marked tenderness under the metatarsal heads, a 30 percent rating is warranted for bilateral disability. A 10 percent evaluation is applicable when there is bilateral or unilateral dorsiflexion of the great toe with some limitation of dorsiflexion at the ankle and definite tenderness under metatarsal heads. Additionally, under Diagnostic Code 5284, foot injuries warrant a 10 percent evaluation if they are moderate, a 20 percent evaluation if they are moderately severe or a 30 percent evaluation if they are severe. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5284. VA outpatient treatment records show very little treatment for the bilateral foot disorder. A record dated in August 2006 does reflect that the veteran was issued custom orthotics for use. He was noted to have rigid plantar flexion of the first metatarsal bilaterally. In stance, the veteran exhibited increased medial arch height, left greater than right, rigid, with heels slightly inverted. There was lateral deviation of the great toes bilaterally, with prominent first metatarsal head, left greater than right. The veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2006. His claims file was reviewed at the time of the evaluation. The veteran's complaints consisted of bilateral foot pain, located in the arch area of his foot. He noted weakness and fatigability secondary to the pain in his feet. The veteran stated that he limited his walking to short walks of less than two blocks. He uses Advil and Tylenol with temporary relief. The veteran indicated that he was not presently working, but did note that standing caused increased pain when he was working as a carpenter. He also indicated that he was issued corrective devices during service, but they were ineffective. Upon physical examination, the veteran had a very prominent elevation of the tarsal and metatarsal bones, giving the appearance of a high arch. The arch area was sensitive to palpation in both feet. There also was a hallux valgus deformity in both feet of 20 degrees. The Achilles tendon alignment was normal bilaterally, and the examiner specifically noted that the veteran did not have a flat foot condition. In fact, he had the opposite because of his congenital abnormality (severe metatarsus adductus deformity of the first cuneiforms and an unusually thick and short first metatarsal bilaterally). There was no fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance or change in the range of motion, except for that which was caused by pain. The examiner noted that there was no evidence of abnormal weight bearing in either foot, as there is no abnormal callous formation. The overall clinical impression was chronic foot pain secondary to severe metatarsus adductus deformity of the first cuneiforms and an unusually thick and short first metatarsal bilaterally; and bilateral hallux valgus deformity. X-rays showed hallux valgus and hammertoes. The veteran underwent another VA examination in August 2006. The claims file was available and reviewed by the examiner. The veteran reported constant pain in the arches of his feet. The veteran reported that he had not worked in 12 years, although the examiner was unsure as to the reason for this. The examiner noted that there had been no interval change since the October 2005 VA examination. The examiner noted that a July 2006 VA podiatry record revealed a diagnosis of rigid pes cavus both sides, left more so than right and hallux valgus both sides. Upon objective evaluation, the veteran was observed to walk with a slow gate and a 4-point cane. He was also observed holding onto the railing while walking with a slow gait from the waiting room to the examiner's room. The examiner noted that both ankles looked entirely normal and demonstrated no laxity. Both feet demonstrated a high arch. The diagnosis was bilateral pes cavus. At a personal hearing held in November 2006, the veteran testified that he has chronic pain in his feet, which limits his mobility and has not improved with prescribed orthotics. Based upon the Board's review of all the evidence, it is apparent that the veteran's bilateral foot disorder is not pes planus (flat foot), but rather, it is better described as pes cavus (claw foot). As such, this disability is more appropriately rated under Diagnostic Code 5278 than Diagnostic Code 5276. The Board finds that the degree of disability described by objective medical evidence since the effective date of service connection appears to more closely approximate the criteria for a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5278. The medical evidence shows that the veteran was diagnosed with bilateral rigid pes cavus. He has chronic foot pain upon manipulation and use, severe metatarsus adductus deformity of the first cuneiforms and an unusually thick and short first metatarsal bilaterally. Hallux valgus deformity and hammertoes were also shown. These symptoms approximate those identified for a 30 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5278, including shortened plantar fascia and marked tenderness under the metatarsal heads. Accordingly, an increased rating to 30 percent is warranted. An even higher (50 percent) rating is not warranted under Diagnostic Code 5278 since there is no evidence of a marked contraction of plantar fascia with dropped forefoot, very painful callosities, and marked varus deformity. In light of the cumulative evidence, the Board is of the opinion that the veteran's overall disability picture more closely approximates a moderately severe disability under Diagnostic Code 5278. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Accordingly, a 30 percent rating is warranted for this disability for the bilateral foot disorder. The assigned rating contemplates the objective evidence of weakness and fatigue secondary to chronic pain, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.10, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59 (2005); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 204-06 (1995). The Board has considered whether other higher ratings are available under other relevant Diagnostic Codes, but notes that no other Diagnostic Code is applicable to this case. The veteran does not have pes planus, and is therefore not entitled to the maximum 50 percent disability rating under Diagnostic Code 5276. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5726 (2007). There also is no evidence of malunion or nonunion of the tarsal or metatarsal bones, so Diagnostic Code 5283 is also not for application. An increased rating to 30 percent (and no higher) from the effective date of service connection is warranted. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5728 (2007). As the severity of the bilateral foot disability does not appear to have varied since the effective date of service connection, staged ratings are not warranted. See Fenderson, supra. Ankle Disabilities - Right and Left The RO granted service connection for a left and right ankle disorder and awarded each a separate 10 percent disability evaluation, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271, effective from July 12, 2005. In a September 2006 rating action, the RO increased the right and left ankle disability evaluations to 20 percent each, still effective from July 12, 2005. The veteran contends his left and right ankle disorders each warrant initial disability ratings in excess of 20 percent. The Board has considered his contentions, but finds however, that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claims for higher ratings. Pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271, a 10 percent rating is warranted for moderate limitation of motion of an ankle and a 20 percent rating is warranted for marked limitation of motion of an ankle. Normal ranges of ankle motions are 0 to 20 degrees for dorsiflexion and 0 to 45 degrees for plantar flexion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II (2007). Turning to other potentially relevant codes, the Board notes that pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5270, a 30 percent rating is warranted for ankylosis of the ankle in plantar flexion between 30 and 40 degrees, or ankylosis in dorsiflexion between 0 and 10 degrees. A 40 percent rating requires ankylosis in plantar flexion at more than 40 degrees, or in dorsiflexion at more than 10 degrees or with abduction, adduction, inversion or eversion deformity. Turning to the objective medical evidence, the veteran underwent a VA examination in October 2005. There was marked tenderness upon evaluation of the ankles, especially the medial malleolus on the right. There was also tenderness in the left ankle, as well as on the right lateral malleolus. The range of motion was 0 to 10 degrees dorsiflexion on the right and 0 to 15 degrees on the left. Plantar flexion was from 0 to 45 degrees, bilaterally. The veteran reported having ankle pain constantly, and therefore the ranges of motion were noted to be the ranges measured with pain. The examiner stated that the veteran had increased pain upon use. There was no fatigue, weakness, lack of endurance or change in the range of motion upon examination, except for that which was caused by pain. The overall clinical impression was chronic ankle pain secondary to severe metatarsus adductus deformity of the first cuneiforms and an unusually thick and short first metatarsal bilaterally. The veteran underwent another VA examination in August 2006. The claims file was available and reviewed by the examiner. The veteran reported constant pain in his ankles. The examiner noted that there had been no interval change since the October 2005 VA examination. Upon objective evaluation, the veteran was noted to walk with a slow gate and a 4-point cane. He was also noted to hold onto the railing while walking from the waiting room to the examiner's room. Upon examination, the veteran's gait was slow. The examiner noted that both ankles looked entirely normal and demonstrated no laxity. The veteran demonstrated dorsiflexion to 10 degrees and plantar flexion to 20 degrees. He was capable of slow repetitive motion and on such motion; the aforementioned range of motion of both ankles was not additionally limited by pain, fatigue, weakness or lack of endurance. There was no aversion at the ankles. The diagnosis was unexplained bilateral ankle pain with limitation of motion of both ankles. At the veteran's hearing in November 2006, he testified that he has bilateral ankle pain, with intermittent swelling and instability. The veteran stated that he did not drive and had limitations with mobility, including climbing stairs. The veteran further testified that he uses a walker for the primary purpose of taking the weight off of his ankles. VA outpatient treatment records show very little treatment for the bilateral ankle disorder. Records dated in August 2006 do reflect that the veteran reported increasing bilateral ankle pain with episodes of instability. There is no indication in these records that the veteran was issued a walker for his bilateral ankle disability. After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that disability ratings in excess of 20 percent for the left and right ankle disorders are not warranted. The veteran's ankle disabilities have each been assigned a 20 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 5271 on the basis of marked limitation of motion of the ankle. 38 C.F.R. §4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5271 (2007). This is the maximum disability evaluation available under this Diagnostic Code. The Board has considered whether higher ratings are available under other relevant Diagnostic Codes, but notes that no other code is applicable to this case. Specifically, there is no evidence of ankylosis of the ankle and therefore, a higher disability rating under Diagnostic Code 5270 for ankylosis is not warranted. The Board has also considered the applicability of DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995), including whether there is a basis for assigning ratings in excess of 20 percent due to additional limitation of motion resulting from pain or functional loss. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59. However, as the veteran already receives the maximum rating for limitation of ankle motion for both ankles, there is no basis for higher ratings based on these factors. See Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80 (1997). As a result, the Board finds that the veteran is entitled to the currently assigned 20 percent evaluations, and no higher, for his service-connected right and left ankle disabilities. The Board also finds there is no evidence of any unusual or exceptional circumstances, such as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization related to this service-connected disorder that would take the veteran's case outside the norm so as to warrant an extraschedular rating. Therefore, referral by the RO to the Chief Benefits Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Service, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321, is not warranted. See Bagwell v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 337 (1996). Earlier effective dates The veteran appeals the July 12, 2005 effective date assigned for his award of VA compensation for the left and right ankle disorders and his bilateral foot disorder. He contends that the effective date should be January 23, 1976. The assignment of effective dates of awards is generally governed by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim for service connection or a claim reopened after final adjudication "shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefore." 38 U.S.C.A. § 5110(a). The implementing regulation clarifies this to mean that the effective date of an evaluation and an award of compensation based on an original claim or a claim reopened after final disallowance "will be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is the later." 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. With a claim for service connection, the effective date of an award will be (1) the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service or (2) the date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. §3.400(b)(2)(i). A specific claim in the form prescribed by VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid to any individual under the laws administered by VA. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5101(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) (2007). Previous determinations which are final and binding, including decisions of service connection, will be accepted as correct in the absence of clear and unmistakable error (CUE). Where evidence establishes such error, the prior decision will be reversed or amended. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (2007). The Court has held that an application that had been previously denied could not preserve an effective date for a later grant of benefits based on a new application. Wright v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 343, 346-47 (1997); see also Washington v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 391, 393 (1997) ("The fact that the appellant had previously submitted claim applications, which had been denied, is not relevant to the assignment of an effective date based on a current application."). The Court has held that the failure to consider evidence which may be construed as an earlier application or claim, formal or informal, that would have entitled the claimant to an earlier effective date is remandable error. See Lalonde v. West, 7 Vet. App. 537, 380 (1999); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a); Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198-99 (1992). The Court has held, however, that the Board is not required to conjure up issues that were not raised by an appellant. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32 (1998). Based upon the evidence of record, the Board finds that there is simply no basis upon which to justify granting an effective date earlier than July 12, 2005, for the grant of service connection for the left and right ankle disorders. The veteran submitted a claim for service connection for left and right ankle disorders that was received at the RO on July 12, 2005. Prior to July 12, 2005, there is no record of a formal claim for service connection for such disorders, and the record contains no communication that could be considered an informal claim for VA compensation. As noted, with a claim for service connection, the effective date of an award will be either, the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year after separation from service; or the date of receipt of claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 C.F.R. §3.400(b)(2)(i). The veteran separated from service in January 1976. He did not file a claim for his ankle disorders within one year after separation; but many years later in July 2005. Thus, there is no basis for an effective date earlier than July 12, 2005. Regarding the bilateral foot disorder, the record shows that the veteran filed an original claim for that was received at the RO in September 25, 1992. The claim was denied on the merits by the RO in a February 25, 1993 rating decision. The veteran was given notice of the denial and his appellate rights, but did not file a timely appeal of this determination within the one-year appellate period following issuance of this notice. Therefore, that denial became final. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.160(d), 20.200, 20.302, 20.1103 (2007). In the recent case of Rudd v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 296 (2006), the veteran sought earlier effective dates for various benefits, by attempting to overcome final unappealed rating determinations dated years earlier. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that a final decision of the Secretary was subject to revision only on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error, or upon the presentation of new and material evidence to reopen. Because the proper effective date for an award based on a claim to reopen can be no earlier than the date on which that claim was received, only a request for revision based on CUE could result in the assignment of an earlier effective date for the appellant's awards. The Court concluded that there was no proper CUE claim, and dismissed the case. Applying the holding in Rudd to the facts of this case, specifically as it regards the bilateral foot disorder, the veteran's original claim for service connection was denied in an unappealed and final rating decision in March 1993. Thereafter, the only application on his part to reopen this claim was received on July 12, 2005. Since the February 25, 1993 rating decision is final, and the next claim was not received until July 12, 2005, the only basis upon which to find entitlement to an earlier effective date than July 12, 2005 is if the evidence revealed that there was clear and unmistakable evidence (CUE) in the prior decision. The veteran has made no such specific claim, and no obvious error is revealed upon the Board's current review of the evidence then of record. Thus, there are no provisions in the applicable laws and regulations to allow an earlier effective date prior to July 12, 2005 for the bilateral foot disorder. ORDER Entitlement to a 30 percent rating, but not higher, for a bilateral foot disorder is granted, subject to the criteria applicable to the payment of monetary benefits. An initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a right ankle disorder is denied. An initial disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a left ankle disorder is denied. An effective date earlier than July 12, 2005 for the grant of service connection for a bilateral foot disorder, a right ankle disorder, and a left ankle disorder is denied. ____________________________________________ Dennis F. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs