Citation Nr: 18158201 Decision Date: 12/14/18 Archive Date: 12/14/18 DOCKET NO. 18-23 064A DATE: December 14, 2018 ORDER 1. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied. 2. Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected lumbosacral strain is denied. 3. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected left knee tendonitis/tendonosis with shin splint is denied. 4. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected earlier right knee strain with shin splint is denied. 5. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for service-connected dislocation of coccyx, status post fracture is denied. 6. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right ear hearing loss is denied. 7. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is denied. 8. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for obstructive sleep apnea is denied. 9. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension is denied. 10. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction is denied. 11. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for migraines is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran does not have a diagnosis of left ear hearing loss for VA purposes that was incurred in and due to his time in service. 2. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran’s spine has a forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or, forward flexion of the cervical spine greater than 15 degrees but not greater than 30 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, the combined range of motion of the cervical spine not greater than 170 degrees; or, muscle spasms or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. 3. The Veteran’s left knee disability was not manifested by moderate recurrent subluxation or lateral instability. 4. The Veteran’s right knee disability was not manifested by moderate recurrent subluxation or lateral instability. 5. The Veteran has not undergone removal of the coccyx resulting in painful residuals. 6. The Veteran’s service-connected right ear hearing loss was manifested by no more than level I hearing acuity. 7. The Veteran’s service-connected tinnitus is assigned a 10 percent rating, which is the maximum rating authorized under Diagnostic Code (DC) 6260. 8. The Veteran’s sleep apnea requires the use of a continuous airway pressure (CPAP) machine when sleeping, but the evidence does not show chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale, or a tracheostomy. 9. The preponderance of the evidence shows that the Veteran hypertension is not manifested by at least diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more. 10. The Veteran does not have a penile deformity. 11. Throughout the period on appeal, the Veteran’s migraine headaches have not been manifested by any prostrating attacks occurring on an average once a month over the last several months. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for left ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.385. 2. The criteria for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected lumbar strain have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5237. 3. The criteria for an initial compensable rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5260, 5261. 4. The criteria for an initial compensable rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5260, 5261. 5. The criteria for a compensable rating for a coccyx disability have not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.14, 4.71a, DC 5298. 6. The criteria for a compensable disability rating for right ear hearing loss have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.321, 3.385, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.85, 4.86, DC 6100. 7. There is no legal basis for the assignment of a schedular evaluation in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.87, DC 6260. 8. The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 50 percent for sleep apnea are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.97, DC 6847. 9. The criteria for a compensable rating for hypertension have not been met at any time during the pendency of the appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.104, Diagnostic Code 7101. 10. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.7, 4.115b, Diagnostic Code 7522. 11. The criteria for a compensable rating for the Veteran’s service-connected migraines have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8100. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from April 2000 to February 2017. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2). Entitlement to service connection for hearing loss in the left ear The Veteran alleges that he has left ear hearing loss that was incurred in and due to his time in service. Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection on the merits, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) medical evidence or other competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). To establish service connection on a secondary basis, the evidence must show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a)(b) For the purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000 or 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. The threshold for normal hearing is 0 to 20 decibels. The Veteran was afforded an audiological examination in June 2016. The Veteran’s puretone thresholds were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 LEFT 10 5 5 15 10 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 100 percent in the left ear. The Veteran’s audiogram shows he does not have a diagnosis of “hearing loss” for VA purposes in his left ear. While the examiner found the Veteran had right ear hearing loss due to his time in service, the examiner reported the Veteran’s left ear hearing was normal. This does not suggest that hearing in that ear is as good as it once was, simply that it is within a range of “normal” for VA purposes. The remainder of the Veteran’s record is negative for diagnosed left ear hearing loss for VA purposes or a link between any left ear hearing disability and the Veteran’s time in service and therefore, the claim must be denied. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for a lumbosacral strain The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a higher rating for his lumbosacral sprain. Disabilities of the spine are rated under the General Rating Formula for Rating Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5235-5242 (2017). Diagnostic Code 5237 directs that lumbosacral strain be evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (General Rating Formula). Under the General Rating Formula, a 10 percent rating is assigned when forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine is greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; or, muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height. A 20 percent evaluation is assigned for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. A 30 percent evaluation is assigned for forward flexion of the cervical spine 15 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of the entire spine. A 40 percent rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire cervical spine; or forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent rating is assigned for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. A February 2017 rating decision granted service connection for lumbar spine strain. The Veteran’s lumbar spine strain is currently evaluated at 10% disabling. For the reasons below, the Board finds that a higher rating for the Veteran’s lumbar spine strain is not warranted. The Veteran was provided with a VA examination in June 2016. Range of motion testing of the lumbar spine revealed forward flexion up to 90 degrees and backward extension up to 30 degrees, both with pain at the end of range of motion. Lateral flexion and rotation were up to 25 degrees bilaterally with evidence of pain at the end of range of motion. Pain was noted on the exam but the examiner opined that it did not cause functional loss. There is no other medical evidence in significant conflict with the above VA examination. Simply stated, an evaluation in excess of 10 percent is not appropriate without evidence of forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine limited to between 30 and 60 degrees, or evidence of the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees. Here, the evidence is insufficient to show that the Veteran’s disability meets these criteria. The Veteran has complained about back pain, but even considering pain, the Veteran’s forward flexion was 75 degrees and his combined range of motion was not less than 120 degrees. As such, the Board concludes that the back pain is not of such severity as to merit a rating in excess of 10 percent even when contemplating pain, repetitive motion, and flare-ups, as these symptoms do not cause sufficient functional limitations. While he clearly has back pain, it is important for the Veteran to understand that his complaints are, in part, a basis for the current findings. The Veteran’s back problems are not in dispute, it is only the degree of disability based on the evidence that is in question. As the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s disability more nearly approximates the criteria for higher ratings during the period on appeal, a higher rating is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a left knee condition Functional loss due to pain is to be rated at the same level as the functional loss when flexion is impeded. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1993). Pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss as contemplated by VA regulations, but pain may result in functional loss if it limits the ability to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, or endurance. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or inflammation in parts of the system, to perform normal working movements of the body with normal exertion, strength, speed, coordination and endurance. The functional loss may be due to absence of part or all of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated structures, or to deformity, adhesions, defective innervation, or other pathology, or may be due to pain, supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part which becomes painful on use must be regarded as disabled. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45, 4.59 (2016). In that regard, painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, are entitled to at least the minimal compensable rating for the joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; see Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011). Although pain may be a cause or manifestation of functional loss, limitation of motion due to pain is not necessarily rated at the same level as functional loss where motion is impeded. See Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). The Veteran’s left knee disability is currently rated as 10 percent disabling under DC 5260 for painful motion of the knee. Under Diagnostic Code 5260, a zero percent rating is warranted if flexion is limited to 60 degrees; a 10 percent rating is warranted if flexion is limited to 45 degrees; a 20 percent rating is warranted if flexion is limited to 30 degrees; and a 30 percent rating is warranted if flexion is limited to 15 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260. The Veteran underwent a VA examination of the left knee in June 2016. The Veteran reported pain in his left knee when standing for long periods. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with left knee tendinitis/tendonosis and shin splits. Slight tenderness to palpation of the quadriceps tendon. Range of motion is 0-140 degrees. There was no further decreased range of motion, lack of endurance, or increased fatigability with repetitive movement and no instability was noted. The examiner noted pain on flexion but found no functional loss. Additionally, the examination was performed during a flare up, however the examiner did not find any significant functional ability limitation with flare ups. The Board finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted. In this case the minimum compensable rating for a knee disability is 10 percent, which is the same as the rating that has been in place since service connection was originally granted. It is important for the Veteran to understand that there is no dispute that the Veteran has a problem with this disability, the only question is the degree. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee strain with shin splint The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a rating in excess of 10 percent for a right knee condition. The Veteran underwent a VA examination of the right knee in June 2016. The Veteran reported pain in his right knee when standing for long periods. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a right knee strain and shin splits. Slight tenderness to palpation of medial aspect of the knee was noted. Range of motion was 0-140 degrees. There was no further decreased range of motion, lack of endurance, or increased fatigability with repetitive movement and no instability was noted. The examiner noted pain on flexion but found no functional loss. Additionally, the examination was performed during a flare up, however the examiner did not find any significant functional ability limitation with flare ups. The Board finds that a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted. In this case the minimum compensable rating for a knee disability is 10 percent, which is the same as the rating that has been in place since service connection was originally granted. Entitlement to a compensable initial rating for a coccyx disability A February 2017 rating decision granted service connection for a coccyx disability and assigned a noncompensable rating. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to a higher rating. The Veteran’s coccyx disability is rated under Diagnostic Code 5298. A noncompensable rating is assigned for coccyx removal without painful residuals. A 10 percent rating is assigned for partial or complete coccyx removal with painful residuals. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5298. At a VA back examination in June 2016, the examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a dislocation of the coccyx. The examiner reviewed x-ray imaging of the Veteran’s sacrum, which was found to be normal. Applying the regulations to the facts in the case, the Board finds that the criteria for a compensable disability rating are not met for the Veteran’s coccyx disability. The Veteran’s treatment records do not show that he underwent the removal of his coccyx and no VA examiner has noted abnormal findings. Accordingly, the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5298 for the Veteran’s coccyx disability have not been met, and the claim is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right hear hearing loss The Veteran asserts that his right ear hearing loss is worse than that contemplated by the assigned disability rating. Service connection for the Veteran’s right ear hearing loss was granted in a February 2017 rating decision. A 0 percent initial disability rating was assigned pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.86, DC 6100. Hearing loss is evaluated under 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.86, DC 6100, Tables VI, VIA, and VII of VA’s rating schedule. The Rating Schedule provides a table for rating purposes (Table VI) to determine a Roman numeral designation (I through XI) for hearing impairment, established by a state-licensed audiologist including a controlled speech discrimination test (Maryland CNC), and based upon a combination of the percent of speech discrimination and the puretone threshold average which is the sum of the puretone thresholds at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 Hertz, divided by four. 38 C.F.R. § 4.85. Table VII is used to determine the percentage evaluation by combining the Roman numeral designations for hearing impairment of each ear. The horizontal row represents the ear having the poorer hearing and the vertical column represents the ear having the better hearing. Id. The Court has held that the assignment of disability ratings for hearing impairment are to be derived by the mechanical application of the Rating Schedule to the numeric designations assigned after audiometry evaluations are rendered. Lendenmann v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 345 (1992). Simply stated, this means that while the Veteran may have hearing problems (this fact is not in dispute), whether he has hearing loss warranting compensation is based on certain objective criteria. The only question is the degree of disability. The Veteran was provided with a VA audiological examination in June 2016. His reported puretone thresholds, in decibels, were as follows: HERTZ 500 1000 2000 3000 4000 RIGHT 10 5 0 35 70 Speech audiometry revealed speech recognition ability of 200 percent in the right ear. Applying these results to Table VI of the Rating Schedule reveals numeric designations of Level I for the right ear. When hearing loss is at level I, a 0 percent evaluation is assigned. The assignment of disability ratings for hearing loss is primarily based upon a mechanical application of the rating criteria, as explained, and applied in this decision. In this case, the clinical evidence of record, when mechanically applied to the rating criteria, simply does not show that a compensable rating is warranted. To the extent that the Veteran contends that his right ear hearing loss is more severe than reflected by his current disability ratings, the Board observes that the Veteran can attest to factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge and understanding as a lay person, such as trouble hearing. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005). However, he is not competent to state that his hearing acuity is of a severity sufficient to warrant a higher rating under VA’s tables for rating hearing loss disabilities because such an opinion requires medical expertise and knowledge that he has not been shown to possess. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011). The clinical evidence of record, when mechanically applied to the rating criteria, simply does not show that a compensable initial rating is warranted. Entitlement to an increased rating for tinnitus The Veteran was awarded service connection and a 10 percent rating for tinnitus in a February 2017 rating decision. Thereafter, he initiated an appeal for a higher disability evaluation. The originating agency has denied the Veteran’s request for a higher rating because the maximum schedular rating authorized for tinnitus is 10 percent. In Smith v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2006), the Federal Circuit concluded that only a single 10 percent disability rating for tinnitus, regardless of whether the tinnitus is unilateral or bilateral, could be assigned. The Veteran’s service-connected tinnitus is evaluated as 10 percent disabling, which is the maximum schedular rating available for such a disability. See 38 C.F.R. §4.87, DC 6260. As there is no legal basis upon which to award a separate schedular evaluation for tinnitus in each ear or a higher schedular rating for tinnitus, the Veteran’s claim for such a benefit is without legal merit. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Accordingly, a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for tinnitus is denied. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for obstructive sleep apnea. The Veteran’s sleep apnea is rated at 50 percent under 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6847. Under Diagnostic Code 6847, a 50 percent evaluation is warranted for sleep apnea requiring use of a breathing assistance device such as a CPAP machine. A higher 100 percent rating is warranted when there is chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale, or when the condition requires a tracheostomy. The Board finds that the criteria for the higher 100 percent rating have not been met. The Veteran’s sleep apnea was diagnosed in May 2016 following a sleep study and CPAP treatment was recommended. However, the Veteran’s sleep apnea has not manifested in chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale, and does not require a tracheostomy. Therefore, the criteria for a higher rating for obstructive sleep apnea have not been met. Entitlement to an initial disability rating in excess of 10 percent for hypertension The Veteran’s hypertension is currently rated as 10 percent under diagnostic code 7101. 38 C.F.R. § 4.103. Under this diagnostic code, a 10 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 160 or more, or; minimum evaluation for an individual with a history of diastolic pressure predominantly 100 or more who requires continuous medication for control; a 20 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more, or; systolic pressure predominantly 200 or more; a 40 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 120 or more; and, a 60 percent rating is warranted for diastolic pressure predominantly 130 or more. In June 2016, the Veteran underwent a VA examination. During the examination, the Veteran had average blood pressure readings of 127/101. A review of the Veteran’s treatment records does not demonstrate diastolic pressure predominantly 110 or more or systolic pressure predominantly above 200. Accordingly, the Board finds that a rating greater than 10 percent is not warranted. In reaching the above conclusions, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b). Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for erectile dysfunction. The Veteran was granted service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) and was assigned a noncompensable rating under DC 7522. The Board notes that the Veteran has already been granted special monthly compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k) due to loss of use of a creative organ. There is no diagnostic code which deals with erectile dysfunction exclusively. The Veteran’s erectile dysfunction is currently rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7522 which is deemed by the Board to be the most appropriate primarily because it is the only diagnostic code which includes loss of erectile power among its criteria. The Board can identify nothing in the evidence to suggest that another diagnostic code would be more appropriate. DC 7522 provides a 20 percent rating for deformity of the penis with loss of erectile power. No other disability rating is provided by this diagnostic code. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.115b, DC 7522. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.31 indicate that in every instance where the minimum schedular evaluation requires residuals and the schedule does not provide for a zero percent evaluation, a zero percent evaluation will be assigned when the required symptomatology is not shown. After a thorough review of the record, the Board finds the Veteran suffers from loss of erectile power but the Veteran’s medical records, including his examinations, do not show the Veteran has any penile deformity. See June 2016 VA Reproductive Organ Examination. Therefore, because the preponderance of the evidence does not show findings of penile deformity, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for migraines The Veteran is service-connected for migraine headaches currently rated as noncompensable. He claims that his disability is more severe than what is reflected by the current rating. The Veteran’s headaches are currently rated under Diagnostic Code 8100, which provides a noncompensable rating for characteristic prostrating attacks averaging less than one in two months over the last several months; a 10 percent rating for characteristic prostrating attacks averaging one in two months over the last several months; a 30 percent rating for characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average of once a month; and 50 percent for very frequent completely prostrating and prolonged attacks productive of severe economic inadaptability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a (2017). The Rating Schedule does not define prostrating, nor has the Court. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Severe economic inadaptability is also not defined in VA statutes or regulations. Pierce v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 440 (2004). Turning to the evidence of record, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2016 and was diagnosed with migraines at that time. The examiner found that the Veteran did not have characteristic prostrating attacks of migraine headaches. The Board accords this opinion high probative value. Under DC 8100, the criteria require a veteran to experience prostrating headache attacks occurring on average once every two months in order for a compensable rating to be warranted. Apart from sporadic reports of headaches, the record is devoid of indications of prostrating headaches of the frequency contemplated in the ratings. Accordingly, while the Veteran clearly has some problems with headaches, the objective medical evidence is insufficient to show that the Veteran’s headaches are of such frequency and severity to meet the criteria for a compensable rating under DC 8100. As the preponderance of the evidence is against this claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. The Effective Date Claims The Veteran alleges that he is entitled to an earlier effective date for his service-connected obstructive sleep apnea, left knee condition, lumbsacral sprain, right knee condition, tinnitus, hypertension, dislocation of the coccyx, right ear hearing loss and migraines. In general, the effective date of an award based on an original claim or a claim reopened after final adjudication of compensation shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of the receipt of the application. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Generally, the effective date of an award of disability compensation based on an original claim shall be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (b)(2) allow for assignment of an effective date the day following separation from active service if a claim is received within one year after separation from service. In this case, the Veteran is currently in receipt of the earliest effective date legally available. The Veteran separated from service on February 2, 2017. The effective date for all service-connected claims is February 3, 2017, the earliest possible date. As there is no legal basis for assignment of any earlier effective date, and because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for any earlier effective date, the claim must be denied. JOHN J CROWLEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD V. Woehlke, Associate Counsel