Citation Nr: 18159967 Decision Date: 12/20/18 Archive Date: 12/20/18 DOCKET NO. 16-43 829 DATE: December 20, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than November 28, 2014, for the assignment of an initial 50 percent evaluation for bilateral pes planus is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a September 2006 rating decision, the Regional Office (RO) granted service connection for bilateral pes planus and assigned a noncompensable evaluation effective from December 15, 2005. However, the notice of the decision was not mailed to the Veteran’s address of record. and there is no indication that he was properly notified. 2. Prior to November 28, 2014, the Veteran’s bilateral pes planus was not manifested by pronounced symptoms including extreme tenderness of the plantar surfaces of the feet or marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the tendo achilles on manipulation. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than November 28, 2014, for the assignment of an initial 50 percent evaluation for bilateral pes planus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5101, 5110 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.151, 3.155, 3.400, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5276 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 2003 to December 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 rating decision. Law and Analysis Neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that “the Board’s obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board.”); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument). Unless specifically provided otherwise, the effective date of an award based on an original claim, a claim reopened after final adjudication, or a claim for increase, of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension, shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the date of receipt of application therefor. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). The effective date for an award of service connection is the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose, if the claim is received within one year after separation from service; otherwise, the effective date is the later of the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement to service connection arose. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). The law provides an exception to this general rule governing claims “for increase.” 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a), (b)(2). If the evidence shows that the increase in disability occurred prior to the date of receipt of claim, the RO may assign the earliest date as of which it is ascertainable that the increase occurred as long as the claim for the increased disability rating was received within a year of the date that the increase occurred. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982-84 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125 (1997); Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134- 135 (1992); VAOPGCPREC 12-98, 63 Fed. Reg. 56704 (1998). Thus, three possible dates may be assigned depending on the facts of the case: (1) If an increase in disability occurs after the claim is filed, the date that the increase is shown to have occurred (date entitlement arose) (38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(1)); (2) If an increase in disability precedes the claim by a year or less, the date that the increase is shown to have occurred (factually ascertainable) (38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2)); or (3) If an increase in disability precedes the claim by more than a year, the date that the claim is received (date of claim) (38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2)). See Gaston, 605 F.3d at 982-8; Harper, 10 Vet. App at 126. In addition, the Court has indicated that the service-connected disability must have increased in severity to a degree warranting an increase in compensation. See Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511, 519 (1992) (noting that, under section 5110(b)(2) which provides that the effective date of an award of increased compensation shall be the earliest date of which it is ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, “the only cognizable ‘increase’ for this purpose is one to the next disability level” provided by law for the particular disability). Therefore, determining the appropriate effective date for an increased rating under the effective date regulations involves an analysis of the evidence to determine (1) when a claim for an increased rating was received and, if possible, (2) when the increase in disability actually occurred or was “ascertainable.” 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.155, 3.400(o)(2); Hazan, 10 Vet. App. at 521. The effective dates for “staged ratings” are established using the principle set forth at 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2), that is, the earliest date that it is factually ascertainable that the criteria for each disability rating were met. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). In determining when an increase is “factually ascertainable,” VA will look to all of the evidence including testimonial evidence and expert medical opinions as to when the increase took place. VAOPGCPREC 12-98. Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to require that all claims governed by VA’s adjudication regulations be filed on a standard form. The amendments implement the concept of an intent to file a claim for benefits, which operates similarly to the informal claim process, but requires that the submission establishing a claimant’s effective date of benefits must be received in one of three specified formats. The amendments also eliminate the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims to reopen under 38 C.F.R. § 3.157. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (now codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p), 3.151, 3.155). The amendments apply only to claims filed on or after March 24, 2015. Because the Veteran’s claim was received by VA prior to that date, the former regulations apply, as provided below. A specific claim in the form prescribed by VA must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The term “claim” or “application” means a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement or evidencing a belief in entitlement to a benefit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). Any communication or action indicating an intent to apply for one or more benefits under laws administered by VA from a claimant may be considered an informal claim. Such informal claim must identify the benefit sought. Upon receipt of an informal claim, if a formal claim has not been filed, an application form will be forwarded to the claimant for execution. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). To determine when a claim was received, the Board must review all communications in the claims file that may be construed as an application or claim. See Quarles v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 129, 134 (1992). An appeal consists of a timely filed notice of disagreement (NOD), and after a statement of the case (SOC) has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200. There must be a decision by the RO, the claimant must express timely disagreement with the decision (an NOD), VA must respond by explaining the basis of the decision to the claimant, and the claimant, after receiving adequate notice of the basis of the decision, must complete the process by stating his or her argument in a timely filed substantive appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.302. Proper completion and filing of a substantive appeal are the last actions a claimant needs to take to perfect an appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. A written communication from a claimant or his or her representative expressing dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the RO and a desire to contest the result will constitute an NOD. While special wording is not required, the NOD must be in terms that can be reasonably construed as a disagreement with that determination and a desire for appellate review. If the RO gave notice that adjudicative determinations were made on several issues at the same time, the specific determinations with which the claimant disagrees must be identified. 38 U.S.C. § 7105 and 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (as in effect prior to March 24, 2015, later amended by 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (now codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.23, 20.201(b))); Gallegos v. Gober, 283 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002). Once a formal claim for pension or compensation has been allowed or a formal claim for compensation disallowed for the reason that the service-connected disability is not compensable in degree, receipt of a report of examination or hospitalization by VA or uniformed services will be accepted as an informal claim for increased benefits or an informal claim to reopen. 38 C.F.R. § 3.157. Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). To deny a claim on its merits, the weight of the evidence must be against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518, 519 (1996). In this case, the Veteran has contended that he is entitled to an effective date prior to November 28, 2014, for the assignment of a 50 percent evaluation for his service-connected bilateral pes planus. Specifically, he has asserted that he is entitled to an effective date beginning on the day after his separation from service on December 15, 2005. Historically, the Veteran separated from service on December 14, 2005, and he filed a claim for service connection for flat feet on December 21, 2005. In a September 2006 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for bilateral pes planus and assigned a noncompensable evaluation effective from December 15, 2005. On September 6, 2006, the Veteran provided VA an updated mailing address. Thereafter, on September 8, 2006, the RO sent the Veteran notice of the September 2006 rating decision. Notably, however, the notice letter was not sent to the Veteran’s updated mailing address. Regulations required that the claimant be notified in writing of decisions affecting the payment of benefits or granting relief. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(f) (2006). The notice must also advise the claimant of his “right to initiate an appeal by filing a Notice of Disagreement” and “the periods in which an appeal must be initiated and perfected.” Id. Notice for VA purposes is written notice sent to the claimant’s last address of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(q). If VA does not properly notify the claimant of its decision, the claim remains pending. Woods v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 214, 221 (2000). There is a legal presumption of regularity under which it is presumed that government officials “have properly discharged their official duties.” Clear evidence to the contrary is required to rebut the presumption of regularity. See Ashley v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 307 (1992), (quoting United States v. Chemical Foundation, 272 U.S. 1, 14-15 (1926)); see also Mindenhall v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 271 (1994). If a claimant alleges non-receipt of a VA notice letter, clear evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity “mandates not only a declaration by the appellant of non-receipt, but additional evidence to corroborate the appellant’s declaration, such as an addressing error by VA that was consequential to delivery.” Clarke v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 130, 133 (2007). An addressing error is consequential where it “results in an address that does not contain all the necessary address elements” sufficient to enable delivery. Id. at 135; see also Crain v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 182, 187 (2003) (sending notice to an incorrect mailing address “constitutes the ‘clear evidence’ needed to rebut the presumption of regularity that the BVA properly mailed notice” of the Board decision). In this case, the evidence of record does not establish that the September 2006 notice letter was properly mailed to the Veteran. Indeed, the record shows that the RO sent the September 2006 notice letter to an incorrect mailing address. As such, there is clear evidence to rebut the presumption of regularity. In December 2006 correspondence, the Veteran indicated that he was responding to a request for clarification. In so doing, he referenced a September 2006 decision that denied his claim for service-connection for posttraumatic stress disorder. However, the December 2006 correspondence does not reflect that the Veteran was provided proper notice of the award of service connection for bilateral pes planus and the assignment of a noncompensable evaluation. The Veteran’s subsequent lay statements also do not clearly establish that he received notice of the September 2006 rating decision. For example, in his June 2015 notice of disagreement, the Veteran stated that he initially filed a claim for flat feet in 2006, but that his claim was denied. In an August 2015 correspondence, the Veteran stated that he initially filed his claim in December 2005 and received a response acknowledging his application. Moreover, the Board notes that the Veteran was unrepresented at the time of the September 2006 rating decision, and therefore, a copy of the notice was not sent to a representative. For these reasons, the Board finds that the period for filing a notice of disagreement with the September 2006 rating decision was tolled, and the matter remained pending. On November 28, 2014, the Veteran filed a claim for an increased evaluation for his bilateral pes planus. In a March 2015 rating decision, the RO increased the evaluation for the Veteran’s service-connected bilateral pes planus to 50 percent effective from November 28, 2014. Thereafter, a statement of the case was issued in July 2016, and the Veteran timely perfected an appeal. As discussed above, the time for period for submitting a notice of disagreement for the September 2006 did not run, and the Veteran’s December 2005 claim remained pending. Therefore, the effective date issue on appeal stems from a disagreement with the effective date of the award of an initial 50 percent evaluation following the grant of service connection. Different statutory and regulatory provisions apply depending on whether the claim is an original claim or one for increased compensation. For example, generally for an original claim, the effective date can be no earlier than the date of claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). An effective date for an increased-rating claim may date back as much as one year before the date of the claim for increase if it is factually “ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred” within that timeframe. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2); Harper v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 125, 126 (1997) (stating that § 3.400(o)(2) applies to claim where increase in disability precedes claim, providing that that claim is received within one year after increase, otherwise general rule in § 3.400(o)(1) applies). Nevertheless, the effective date for an increased rating, initial rating, or staged rating is predicated on when the increase in the level of disability can be ascertained. Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015). In this case, the Veteran was initially assigned a noncompensable evaluation for his bilateral pes planus effective from December 15, 2005, which is the day following his separation from active service. However, the effective date of the award of service connection does not necessarily determine the rating that is warranted. Rather, the Board must consider the facts surrounding the Veteran’s claim and determine whether the evidence supports the award of a 50 percent evaluation prior to the current effective date. The Veteran’s bilateral pes planus is currently assigned a 50 percent evaluation effective from November 28, 2014, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5276. Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The rating schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Disability of the musculoskeletal system is primarily the inability, due to damage or infection in the parts of the system, to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, speed, coordination, and endurance. It is essential that the examination on which ratings are based adequately portray the anatomical damage and the functional loss with respect to all of these elements. In evaluating disabilities of the musculoskeletal system, it is necessary to consider, along with the schedular criteria, functional loss due to flare-ups of pain, fatigability, incoordination, pain on movement, and weakness. DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). The functional loss may be due to absence of part, or all, of the necessary bones, joints and muscles, or associated innervation, or other pathology and evidenced by visible behavior of the claimant undertaking the motion. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. Pain on movement, swelling, deformity or atrophy of disuse as well as instability of station, disturbance of locomotion, interference with sitting, standing and weight bearing are relevant considerations for determination of joint disabilities. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45. 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. Under Diagnostic Code 5276, an evaluation of 50 percent requires bilateral pes planus that is pronounced, with marked pronation, extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces of the feet, marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the tendo Achilles on manipulation, not improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board concludes that the Veteran is not entitled to an effective date earlier than November 28, 2014, for the assignment of the 50 percent evaluation for his service-connected bilateral pes planus. In a March 2004 service treatment record, the Veteran reported having foot pain that only occurred with weight-bearing. He described the pain as a 4 to 5 on a scale of 1 to 10. A physical examination of the Veteran revealed tenderness to palpation and pitting, but no swelling, redness, or radiating pain. Thereafter, the Veteran’s June 2005 separation examination noted moderate asymptomatic pes planus. A June 2005 medical evaluation board (MEB) report indicated that a June 2005 physical examination of the Veteran was essentially within normal limits with the exception of flat feet, knee problems, and hearing loss. A June 2006 VA medical record noted that there was no evidence of edema in the Veteran’s extremities. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in July 2006 during which the examiner diagnosed him with bilateral pes planus. The examiner noted that the Veteran’s disorder was diagnosed by a Physical Standards Board, and he stated that the condition described during active service continued to the present. The examiner reported that the condition did not affect the Veteran’s activities of daily living, chores, or occupation. He noted that the Veteran took over-the-counter pain medication daily, but primarily for his right knee pain. A physical examination of the Veteran revealed that his posture and gait were normal. It was noted that inspection and palpation of the Veteran’s lower extremity joints was also normal. Range of motion testing for the lower extremity joints on passive and active range of motion testing was full. It was further noted that repetitive movement of all the joints of the lower extremities did not produce any additional pain, limitation of movement, weakness, fatigue, or incoordination. Deep tendon reflexes for the lower extremities were all physiologic and equal. There were no gross sensory or motor deficits. A June 2007 VA orthopedic consultation report indicated that strength testing was normal for the Veteran’s lower extremities. It was also noted that the Veteran’s sensation to light touch was intact and that he had a strong dorsales pedis pulse. In a July 2008 VA emergency room record, the Veteran reported that he was working in private security. At that time, a physical examination of the Veteran revealed that his sensation was intact distally in the foot. In an October 2008 VA emergency room record, the Veteran reported having pain in his left ankle that resulted from his left knee buckling. He reported that he laced his boots in a specific way to provide extra support for his ankle. A physical examination of the Veteran’s left lower extremity revealed no effusion. It was noted that the Veteran had slight edema in his ankle laterally and full range of motion with some tenderness. It was also noted that the Veteran’s metatarsals were not tender to compression and that his posterior dorsalis pedis and posterior tibial pulses were intact. An October 2008 VA radiology report noted that three views of the Veteran’s left foot were within normal limits. An August 2010 private medical record indicated that there was no evidence of pedal edema and that the Veteran’s gait was normal. An August 2010 VA examination report noted that a physical evaluation of the Veteran’s feet did not reveal any signs of abnormal weight bearing or breakdown, callosities, or any unusual shoe wear pattern. It was also noted that the Veteran did not require any assistive devices for ambulation. An April 2011 VA medical record documented an assessment of chronic bilateral foot pain and flat foot condition. It was also noted that a physical evaluation of the Veteran’s extremities revealed no edema. A June 2011 VA physical medicine rehabilitation consultation report noted that the Veteran reported suffering a left foot inversion injury when his knee buckled the previous year. It was noted that the Veteran was able to walk approximately one mile every weekend. A physical evaluation revealed normal motor function, and sensation to light touch was intact in the bilateral lower extremities. The Veteran’s deep tendon reflexes in his Achilles were absent, bilaterally. It was noted that there was no pes planus, excessive pronation, or foot alignment abnormality. In a March 2012 private medical record, the Veteran complained of knee pain and reported having functional limitations with running, climbing stairs, walking at a fast pace, and standing for long periods. It was noted that he was a lead officer, which required standing, squatting, bending, and occasional running. A physical examination revealed that the Veteran’s gait was antalgic toeing out on the left side during swing phase. His deep tendon reflexes were normal. In a September 2012 VA rehabilitation consultation record, the Veteran reported having a history of multiple foot inversion injuries at the ankle. He indicated that he was having difficulty climbing and descending stairs due to foot pain. A physical evaluation revealed no swelling in the ankles. It was noted that the Veteran was independent in his mobility without assistive devices and that he never used a cane for ambulation. It was also noted that the Veteran was instructed to use shoe inserts that he had to correct his foot pronation to see whether it would help alleviate his knee pain. A January 2013 VA physical therapy consultation record indicated that the Veteran was evaluated for assistive devices for his knee disabilities. A March 2013 VA medical record noted that the Veteran was treated for bilateral knee pain and that he was previously prescribed a cane to assist with ambulation. A May 2013 VA physical therapy consultation record noted that a foot screening revealed weight-bearing pes planus with increased calcaneovalgum on the left and non-weightbearing forefoot varus, bilaterally. It was also noted that there was left ankle laxity in the calcaneofibular ligament with resultant increased motion into inversion. The Veteran was also referred to podiatry for foot orthotics to support his weight-bearing pronation. A May 2013 private medical record noted that a physical examination of the Veteran’s extremities revealed no pedal edema. A June 2013 private medical record noted that the Veteran denied having weakness in his legs or feet. In a December 2013 primary care record, the Veteran reported that his left ankle and foot pain was worsening in severity. A February 2014 VA podiatry record indicated that a physical evaluation of the Veteran revealed tenderness of to the anterior lateral left ankle capsule, calcaneofibular ligament area, and the left styloid process of the 5th metatarsal base on the left foot. Range of motion testing revealed bilateral subtalar and ankle joints passive range of motion without crepitus, restriction, or discomfort. Muscle strength testing was normal. The Veteran’s feet had normal turgor, temperature, and tone. There was also no pallor with elevation and no rubor with dependency. Deep tendon reflex testing revealed trace bilateral Achilles reflex and sensation was intact to light touch. A June 2014 VA podiatry record noted that the Veteran reported having left ankle instability and pain with minimal improvement from an orthotic with a lateral wedge. A physical examination of the Veteran revealed no edema or varicosities. There was mild pain at the distal syndesmosis, but no pain or subluxation of the peroneal tendons of the left foot. It was noted that there were no other gross skeletal deformities. Muscle strength testing revealed normal foot strength, bilaterally. There was no excessive adduction of abduction or prominence at medial midfoot. Range of motion testing for the subtalar joint, metatarsal joint, 1st metatarsophalangeal joint, and 1st ray was full without any evidence of pain or crepitus. The Veteran’s foot type was noted to be rectus, bilaterally. The VA podiatrist stated that radiographic studies showed no soft tissue swelling and that all other joint spaces were well maintained. He also stated that there were no suspicious lucencies, sclerotic lesions, foreign bodies, or accessory ossicles. A September 2014 VA podiatry record indicated that a physical examination of the Veteran revealed mild pain at the distal syndesmosis, but no pain or subluxation of the peroneal tendons of the left foot. It was noted that there were no other gross deformities. Muscle strength testing revealed normal foot strength, bilaterally. There was no excessive adduction of abduction or prominence at medial midfoot. Range of motion testing for the subtalar joint, metatarsal joint, 1st metatarsophalangeal joint, and 1st ray was full without any evidence of pain or crepitus. In an April 2015 VA surgical report, the Veteran reported that he sustained an inversion injury to his left foot in 2005 and that he was placed in a posterior splint for one month. He reported that his pain worsened after the removal of the posterior splint, but indicated that the majority of his pain was in the area of the anterior talofibular ligament on his lateral ankle. The Veteran indicated that he attempted to wear a brace without relief of symptoms. He also reported wearing top boots on a daily basis to help prevent his ankle from rolling. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in June 2015. The examiner noted that the Veteran had pain on use of the feet, but the pain was not accentuated on manipulation. The Veteran did not have pain on manipulation of the feet, swelling on use, or characteristic calluses. It was noted that the Veteran required arch supports bilaterally. There was extreme tenderness of the plantar surfaces of the Veteran’s feet; however, it was noted that the tenderness was improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. The Veteran had decreased longitudinal arch height of both feet on weight-bearing and there was objective evidence of marked deformity. There was also evidence of marked pronation that was not improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. The Veteran’s weight-bearing line did not fall over or medial to the great toe. There was also no inward bowing, marked inward displacement, or severe spasms of the Achilles tendons. The examiner indicated that the was pain on physical examination that contributed to a functional loss, bilaterally. Specifically, there was pain on movement and weight-bearing. However, the examiner indicated that pain, weakness, fatigability, or incoordination did not significantly limit functional ability during flare-ups or when used repeatedly over a period of time. It was also noted that the Veteran required a cane for ambulation due to his bilateral knee problems. In his August 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran reported that he started using arch supports that provided little to no relief from pain in approximately 2009. Upon review, the Board finds that the evidence does not show that the Veteran’s symptoms more nearly approximated a 50 percent rating prior to November 28, 2014. The weight of the evidence does not show that the Veteran had pronounced symptomatology shown by extreme tenderness of plantar surfaces of the feet, marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the tendo Achillis on manipulation. In this regard, the July 2006 VA examiner specifically stated that an inspection and palpation of the Veteran’s lower extremity joints was normal. He also noted that the Veteran’s gait, stance, and coordination were normal. Thereafter, an October 2008 VA radiology report noted that three views of the Veteran’s left foot were within normal limits. An August 2010 VA examination report noted that a physical evaluation of the Veteran’s feet did not reveal any signs of abnormal weight-bearing or breakdown, callosities, or any unusual shoe wear pattern. A June 2011 VA physical rehabilitation record also noted that there was no pes planus, excessive pronation, or foot alignment abnormality. A June 2014 VA podiatry record described the Veteran’s foot type as rectus, bilaterally. With regard to pronation, a June 2011 VA physical rehabilitation record noted that there was no excessive pronation. Thereafter, a September 2012 VA rehabilitation care consultation indicated that the Veteran used shoe inserts to help correct his foot pronation. Similarly, a May 2013 VA physical therapy consultation noted that the Veteran was referred to podiatry for foot orthotics to support his weight-bearing pronation. In addition, in his August 2016 substantive appeal, the Veteran asserted that he started using arch supports that provided little to no relief from pain in approximately 2009. The June 2015 VA examiner also indicated that the Veteran had marked pronation that was not improved by orthopedic shoes or appliances. The Board does acknowledge the medical records that noted the pronation prior to November 28, 2014. However, the presence of pronation alone is not sufficient to warrant a 50 percent evaluation. The evidence of record does not show that the Veteran had pronounced symptomatology prior to the current effective date even when considering his functional limitations and pain. The Veteran is competent to report his experience and observable symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, as to the onset date of the particular severity of the Veteran’s symptoms, the Board finds that the medical evidence of record does not support that the Veteran’s planus met the criteria for a 50 percent evaluation. Although the evidence reflects that the Veteran complained of pain, there is no indication that he had extreme tenderness of the plantar surfaces prior to the June 2015 VA examination. There is also no indication that the Veteran had marked inward displacement and severe spasm of the tendo achilles on manipulation. The Board notes that the Veteran’s service treatment records included a March 2004 record that showed a diagnosis of pes planus with characteristic callosities. However, the Veterans June 2005 separation examination noted that the Veteran’s pes planus was asymptomatic. In addition, subsequent records noted that no callosities were found on examination. For example, an August 2010 VA examination report indicated that a physical evaluation of the Veteran’s feet did not reveal any signs of abnormal weight bearing or breakdown, callosities, or any unusual shoe wear pattern. Indeed, the Veteran’s most recent June 2015 VA examination did not show evidence of characteristic callosities. The Board also notes that an October 2008 VA emergency room record reported that the Veteran experienced slight swelling in his left ankle. However, the medical records do not show evidence of edema or swelling in the Veteran’s feet. Moreover, although the Veteran’s medical records note that he required the use of a cane for ambulation prior to November 28, 2014, the evidence suggests that the assistive device was prescribed for his knee disabilities. See, e.g., January 2013 VA physical therapy consultation and March 2013 VA medical record. The evidence also indicates that the Veteran wore high top boots for his ankle disability. The Board further notes that an October 2008 VA emergency room record indicated that the Veteran experienced slight swelling in his left ankle. However, the medical records do not show evidence of edema or swelling in the Veteran’s feet. The Board notes that the Veteran has exhibited some symptoms listed among the criteria for 10 and 30 percent ratings. However, when considering the frequency and severity of his symptoms overall, the Board finds that it was not ascertainable that the Veteran met the criteria for a 50 percent evaluation prior to the currently assigned effective date. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that an effective date earlier than November 28, 2014, for the assignment of a 50 percent evaluation for bilateral pes planus is not warranted. J.W. ZISSIMOS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Wulff, Associate Counsel