Citation Nr: 19171981 Decision Date: 09/17/19 Archive Date: 09/17/19 DOCKET NO. 15-27 746 DATE: September 17, 2019 ORDER The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) is denied for the period prior to February 28, 2014. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) is denied for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) is denied for the period starting March 23, 2019. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation of 10 percent but no higher for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability is granted for the period between August 29, 2011 and February 28, 2014. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation of 10 percent but no higher for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability is granted for the period between February 18, 2010 and February 28, 2014. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability is denied for the period beginning February 28, 2014. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability is denied for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019. The claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability is denied for the period beginning March 23, 2019. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. For the period prior to February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability did not result in forward flexion greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees, a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120, 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. 2. For the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability did not result in forward flexion to 30 degrees or less. 3. For the period beginning March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability exhibited forward flexion limited to 30 degrees or less. 4. The Veteran did not have any ankylosis of the lumbar spine or intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) with incapacitating episodes due to his degenerative disc disease disability at any point during the entire period on appeal. 5. The first factually ascertainable evidence of right lower extremity radiculopathy within the appeal period is from August 29, 2011. 6. The first factually ascertainable evidence of left lower extremity radiculopathy within the appeal period is from February 18, 2010. 7. For the period beginning August 29, 2011, the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy disability most closely approximated mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve; the Veteran’s symptoms did not approximate moderate, moderately severe, severe, or complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. 8. For the period between February 18, 2010 and March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy disability most closely approximated mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve; the Veteran’s symptoms did not approximate moderate, moderately severe, severe, or complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. 9. For the period beginning March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy disability most closely approximates moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve; the Veteran’s symptoms do not approximate moderately severe, severe, or complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve. 10. The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities do not preclude him from securing and following a substantially gainful occupation. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a degenerative disc disease disability for the period prior to February 28, 2014, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes (DC) 5242 (2018). 2. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a degenerative disc disease disability for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes (DC) 5242 (2018). 3. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for a degenerative disc disease disability for the period beginning March 23, 2019, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes (DC) 5242 (2018). 4. The criteria for an evaluation of 10 percent but no higher for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period between August 29, 2011 and February 28, 2014, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2018). 5. The criteria for an evaluation of 10 percent but no higher for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period between February 18, 2010 and February 28, 2014, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2018). 6. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period beginning February 28, 2014, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2018). 7. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2018). 8. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period beginning March 23, 2019, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 3.321, 3.400, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.6, 4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.124a, DC 8520 (2018). 9. The criteria for entitlement to a TDIU have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102, 3.340, 3.341, 4.3, 4.16, 4.19 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served in the U.S. Army from December 1978 to January 1982. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to increased disability ratings for a degenerative disc disease disability, a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability, and a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability. The Veteran also contends that he is entitled to a total disability rating based in individual unemployability (TDIU). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2010 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) in January 2011. A statement of the case (SOC) was issued in June 2015, and the Veteran perfected his appeal in July 2015. The RO issued a supplementary statement of the case (SSOC) in June 2019. This case was previously before the Board in August 2018. The Board found that the VA examination of record did not provide information necessary for disability evaluation purposes under Correia v. McDonald. 28 Vet. App. 158, 170 (2016). The Board remanded the case back to the RO in order to obtain a new VA examination for the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability that complied with the requirements of Correia v. McDonald. Id. The Veteran underwent a new VA examination for his degenerative disc disease disability in March 2019, and the March 2019 VA examiner addressed the questions required in Correia. Id. Thus, the Board finds that the remand directives from the August 2018 Board decision were substantially complied with. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The case has now been returned to the Board at this time for further appellate review. I. Increased Rating Disability evaluations are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA’s Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which is based on the average impairment of earning capacity. Individual disabilities are assigned separate diagnostic codes. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § § 3.321, 4.1. The basis of disability evaluations is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. In determining the severity of a disability, the Board is required to consider the potential application of various other provisions of the regulations governing VA benefits, whether or not they were raised by the Veteran, as well as the entire history of the Veteran’s disability. 38 C.F.R. § § 4.1, 4.2; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). If the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher of two ratings, the higher rating will be assigned; otherwise, the lower rating is assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. It is not expected that all cases will show all the findings specified; however, findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom and coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all instances. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21. In deciding this appeal, the Board has considered whether separate ratings for different periods of time, based on the facts found, are warranted, a practice of assigning ratings referred to as “staging the ratings.” See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2008). 1. Degenerative Disc Disease Disability The Veteran contends he is entitled to an increased disability rating for a degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain). For this disability, he contends that he is entitled an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to February 28, 2014, and he contends he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019. He also contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for the period beginning March 23, 2019. As background for the case, the Veteran was granted service connection for a chronic low back strain (now evaluated as a degenerative disc disease disability) with a 10 percent evaluation in a March 1982 rating decision, effective January 12, 1982. The Veteran had acquired his degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) as a result of an in-service incident where an army truck the Veteran was riding in overturned. The Veteran filed the current claim for an increased evaluation of his degenerative disc disease disability on May 28, 2009. The Veteran underwent a VA examination on January 9, 2010. In the August 2010 rating decision currently on appeal, the RO denied the Veteran’s claim for an increased evaluation. The Veteran underwent another VA examination on February 28, 2014; and in the June 2015 SOC, the RO confirmed and continued the denial of the Veteran’s claim. After the August 2018 Board remand and the March 23, 2019 VA examination mentioned earlier, the RO issued a rating decision in June 2019. In the June 2019 rating decision, the RO granted the Veteran an increased evaluation of 20 percent for the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability, effective February 28, 2014, the date of the second VA examination. The RO also granted an evaluation of 40 percent with an effective date of March 23, 2019, the date of the latest VA examination. In determining the appropriate evaluation for musculoskeletal disabilities, particular attention is focused on functional loss of use of the affected part. Where functional loss is alleged due to pain upon motion, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 and § 4.45 must be considered. 38 C.F.R. § § 4.40, 4.45; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 207-08 (1995). Within this context, a finding of functional loss due to pain must be supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the claimant on motion. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40; Johnston v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1997). Pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss as contemplated by § 4.40 and § 4.45, but it may result in functional loss only if it limits the ability to perform the normal working movements of the body with normal excursion, strength, coordination, or endurance. 38 C.F.R. § § 4.40, 4.45; Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 43 (2011). Factors of joint disability include increased or limited motion, weakness, fatigability, or painful movement, swelling, deformity or disuse atrophy. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45. Weakness is as important as limitation of motion, and a part that becomes painful on use must be regarded as seriously disabled. Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is an important factor of joint disability and actually painful joints are entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. Ankylosis is stiffening or fixation of a joint as the result of a disease process, with fibrous or bony union across the joint. Dinsay v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 79, 81 (1996). A degenerative disc disease disability may be rated either under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (General Formula) found at 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. (DCs 5235 through 5242) or under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes also found at § 4.71a (DC 5243), whichever results in the higher evaluation. Under the General Formula, a 10 percent evaluation applies when there is forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal contour; or vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height. A 20 percent evaluation applies where the evidence shows 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 40 percent evaluation requires evidence of forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent evaluation is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine, and a 100 percent evaluation is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5242, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine (2018). For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. The combined range of motion refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. The normal combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine is 240 degrees. The normal ranges of motion for each component of spinal motion provided in this note are the maximum that can be used for calculation of the combined range of motion. Id.at Note (2). For VA compensation purposes, unfavorable ankylosis is a condition in which the entire cervical spine, the entire thoracolumbar spine, or the entire spine is fixed in flexion or extension, and the ankylosis results in one or more of the following: difficulty walking because of a limited line of vision; restricted opening of the mouth and chewing; breathing limited to diaphragmatic respiration; gastrointestinal symptoms due to pressure of the costal margin on the abdomen; dyspnea or dysphagia; atlantoaxial or cervical subluxation or dislocation; or neurologic symptoms due to nerve root stretching. Fixation of a spinal segment in neutral position (zero degrees) always represents favorable ankylosis. Id.at Note (5). Alternatively, the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability may be evaluated under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes, which assigns a 10 percent evaluation with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least one week but less than 2 weeks during the past 12 months. A 20 percent evaluation may be assigned with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 2 weeks but less than 4 weeks during the past 12 months. A 40 percent evaluation may be assigned with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 4 weeks but less than 6 weeks during the past 12 months. A 60 percent evaluation may be assigned for intervertebral disc syndrome with incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least 6 weeks during the past 12 months. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5243, Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome Based on Incapacitating Episodes (2018). An incapacitating episode is a period of acute signs and symptoms due to intervertebral disc syndrome that requires bedrest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician. Id. at Note (1). a. The Period Prior to February 28, 2014 In a January 2010 statement, the Veteran reported that his lower back pain had been getting very bad all the time; and because of his back disability, he was having trouble finding employment. In a May 2010 statement, the Veteran asserted that his back condition has progressively worsened. As mentioned above, the Veteran underwent a VA examination for his degenerative disc disease disability in January 2009. The VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with chronic lumbar strain and degenerative disease of the lumbar spine. The Veteran had forward flexion range of motion (ROM) to 70 degrees; extension ROM to 20 degrees; right and left lateral flexion ROM to 25 degrees; and right and left lateral rotation ROM to 25 degrees. The VA examiner reported that there was no pain on ROM performed; no loss of ROM on repetitive use testing; and no evidence of additional loss of ROM due to pain, weakness, fatigue, lack of endurance, or incoordination. The January 2009 VA examiner also found that there was no localized tenderness, spasm, or deformity present. The Veteran’s muscle strength was normal; and the neurologic examination, sensory examination, and reflexes were normal. The Veteran reported experiencing chronic low back pain aggravated by frequent bending, stooping, and lifting heavy weight. He stated that, over the years since active service, he has had on and off mild back pain. However, there were no reported episodes of flare-up; no history of falls or specific antecedent trauma; no hospitalization or surgery; no neoplasm; and no associated bowel, bladder, or constitutional symptoms. The Veteran denied any radicular symptoms. He reported that he had not had any episodes of total physical incapacitation due to back pain in the last 12 months, and he had not been confined to quarters due to total physical incapacitation in the past 12 months. The VA examiner reported that the Veteran walked briskly in the hallway with normal gait and normal posture. He was able to dress and undress without difficulty, and he was able to walk on his heels and toes. He was not using any assistive device. Also, there was no evidence of adverse impact on activities of daily living or occupation. The Veteran reported that he worked as a self-employed landscaper, and he walks three miles every day for exercise. In the Veteran’s other VA treatment records from this period leading up to February 28, 2014, the Veteran consistently reported back pain. VA treatment notes from 2010 and 2011 also document that the Veteran underwent physical therapy for his back disability. A November 2009 lumbar spine x-ray showed that there may have been minimal narrowing of the L5 - S1 disk interspace. Because of a history of substance abuse, the Veteran did not want to take certain medications for his back issues, but he was regularly reported to use Tylenol, ibuprofen, and tramadol. At a March 2010 Orthopedic Progress Note, the Veteran stated that he did not notice his back pain as much until he stopped using drugs 18 months before. He reported that since then, his back pain had been getting worse. He described the pain as tight and grabbing and rated at 6 to 9 out of 10. He reported the pain was worse with sitting for a long time. On examination, the back exhibited no abnormalities. The examiner reported that the Veteran had no tenderness, spasms, masses, or step-off. The Veteran’s sensation was intact to light touch in all dermatomes of the upper and lower extremities. His muscle strength was normal. A straight leg raise on both sides produced back pain but no leg pain. The Veteran was reported to walk with a normal gait. A related MRI showed diffuse degenerative changes. The Board notes that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle collision in May 2010. The Veteran was a passenger in a VA van that was rear-ended by another vehicle. The Veteran was treated at a non-VA hospital, and a related AAMC Emergency Department Note is of record. VA and private medical records from around the time of this accident indicate that, for a while, the Veteran experienced increased back pain, as well as disc protrusion. For example, in a VA Telephone Encounter Note from May 24, 2010, the Veteran reported increased back and neck pain since the recent accident; and in a Primary Care Note from May 22, 2010, the Veteran was noted to have a broad-based disk bulge at L4-L5. A June 2010 Primary Care Note gave the Veteran an impression of L4-L5 disk herniation. In a private treatment record from around the time of the May 2010 accident, the examiner reported an impression of acute post-traumatic cervical, thoracic, lumbar, lumbosacral, and sacroiliac musculoligamentous sprain / strain with associated biomechanical dysfunction. The examiner noted that this impression was directly related to the recent motor vehicle accident. However, by July 2010, the Veteran reported in another private medical record that his back pain was like it was before the accident. The examiner stated that, in his professional opinion, the Veteran’s symptoms had returned to a pre-trauma status. Additionally, in a March 2015 medical opinion, the examiner was asked whether the Veteran’s back condition was aggravated by the May 2010 accident in the VA van. Specifically, the examiner was asked whether the Veteran’s herniated disc and lumbar spondylosis were a progression or aggravation of his chronic lumbar strain. The examiner found that, on reviewing the Veteran’s file, there was no overwhelming evidence to suggest that Veteran’s herniated disc and lumbar spondylosis were a progression and/or aggravation of the lumbar strain. An August 2010 Orthopedic Progress Note indicates that the Veteran had severe pain with forward flexion and mild pain with hyperextension. He was noted to stand with a neutral sagittal coronal alignment. In a March 2011 Orthopedic Progress Note, the examiner found that the Veteran had axial back pain, multilevel degenerative disk disease of the lumbar spine, and a L4-L5 left paracentral protrusion. The Veteran was ambulating with a non-antalgic gait. His muscle strength L4 through S1 was normal, and he had sensation intact to light touch L5 to S1. He had some minimal tenderness to palpitation over the lumbar spine, but this was primarily paraspinal in nature. In a June 2011 Physical Medicine Rehab Consult, the Veteran was observed ambulating with a mildly antalgic gait. The Veteran reported tight, sore, aching, sharp, or stabbing lower back pain, which he rated at 7 out of 10. The pain was especially present if the Veteran sit or stood for too long. The Veteran reported the pain was a sharp, stabbing 10 out of 10 at worst. At a December 2011 Pain Consult, examination of the Veteran’s lumbar spine did not reveal any tenderness, but forward flexion and extension were both associated with discomfort. Bilateral simultaneous seated straight leg raising also induced some low back pain complaints. In Pain Progress Notes from January 2012 and February 2012, the Veteran reported lower back pain in the nature of aching, throbbing, intermittent, shooting, and sharp, with an average rating of 7 out of 10. Various VA treatment records from 2012 and 2013 indicate he underwent regular epidural injection treatments for his back-related conditions. An MRI from December 2012 showed significant interval evolution of the left L4-5 disk protrusion. The protruded disk had significantly decreased in size with only a mild broad disk bulge shown. In a November 2013 Primary Care Note, the examiner reported that the quality or intensity of the Veteran’s intermittent daily lumbar back pain had not changed for past several years. At an August 2011 Orthopedic Progress Note, the examiner reported that the Veteran was able to forward flex approximately 30 degrees and extend 15 degrees without much pain in the back. At another Orthopedic Progress Note from December 2011, the examiner also reported that the Veteran had minimal forward flexion in the standing position, possibly to 20-30 degrees. However, both of these Orthopedic Progress Notes are outweighed by the other ROM measurements of record. For example, the January 2010 VA examination from less than two years previous reported the Veteran had forward flexion ROM of 70 degrees, and the February 2014 VA examination from a couple years later showed the Veteran to have forward flexion of 60 degrees. The other ROM measurements of record are more consistent and representative of the Veteran’s symptoms and level of functioning during this period. Considering and balancing all the evidence described above, the Board finds that, for the period prior to February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s symptomatology is adequately compensated by the currently-assigned 10 percent disability evaluation. Prior to February 28, 2014, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s symptomatology warranted an evaluation in excess of 10 percent. During that period, the Veteran’s forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is overall shown to be greater than 60 degrees without any additional functional loss following repetitive use. The Veteran exhibited tenderness on rare occasions, but this did not result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. Furthermore, prior to February 28, 2014, there is no indication of any ankylosis (favorable or unfavorable), muscle spasm, guarding, scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. The Veteran did not have any incapacitating episodes due to his lumbar spine disability, and the Veteran has not provided any evidence that he was prescribed bedrest by a physician during that period. Therefore, to the extent the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s claim must be denied. 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); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). b. The Period Between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019 For the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, the Veteran is currently assigned an evaluation of 20 percent for his degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) based on a VA examination from February 28, 2014. At the February 2014 VA examination, the VA examiner gave the Veteran diagnoses of degenerative arthritis of the spine, lumbar strain, herniated lumbar disc, and lumbar spondylosis. The herniated lumbar disc and lumbar spondylosis were noted to have been diagnosed in 2010. The Veteran complained of constant lower back pain and stiffness. The Veteran had forward flexion range of motion (ROM) to 60 degrees with pain beginning at 50 degrees; extension ROM to 10 degrees with pain beginning at 5 degrees; right and left lateral flexion ROM to 25 degrees with pain beginning at 20 degrees; and right and left lateral rotation ROM to 25 degrees with pain beginning at 20 degrees. The Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with 3 repetitions. After repetitive use testing, the Veteran had forward flexion ROM to 50 degrees, extension ROM to 5 degrees, right and left lateral flexion to 20 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation to 20 degrees. Factors contributing to the disability after repetitive use included less movement than normal and pain on movement, as well as interference with sitting, standing, and/or weight-bearing. At the February 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported flare-ups that impact the function of the thoracolumbar spine; specifically, the Veteran reported increased back pain with lifting and bending over. There was an additional functional loss of 5 degrees due to pain during flare-ups compared with the Veteran’s normal ROM, as there had been after repetitive use. The Veteran exhibited tenderness along the lumbar spinous processes and paravertebral muscles. The Veteran also exhibited muscle spasms and guarding of the thoracolumbar spine, but this did not result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. The Veteran had normal muscle strength and reflexes. His sensory examination was mostly normal, except for decreased sensation to light touch in the foot and/or toes (L5). A straight leg test was negative. There was no muscle atrophy, intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) of the thoracolumbar spine, or ankylosis. The Veteran did not use any assistive devices. The February 2014 VA examiner reported that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine condition did not impact his ability to work. At the time, the Veteran worked as a display cook, and he reportedly was able to work through the pain. The VA examiner stated that the current level of disability was moderately severe, and there was additional functional loss due to pain The Veteran’s other VA treatment records from this period are mostly consistent with the February 2014 VA examination. The Veteran continued to undergo regular steroid injections, which would relieve the pain for at least a few days. He also used lidocaine patches and meloxicam, which he said improved his pain. He tried acupuncture, but at a May 2017 Physical Medicine Rehab Note, he stated that he did not feel there was significant improvement after 5 or 6 sessions. He declined surgical remedies. At a January 2017 Physical Medicine Rehab Consult, the Veteran described the pain as sharp, aching, and tight; he felt the pain down the middle of the low back. The Veteran stated that he uses his legs to lift to avoid bending at the low back. He also reported that moving around and changing position seem to help reduce the pain. In a November 2017 Primary Care Note, the examiner stated that the Veteran’s chronic low back pain was stable. However, in a May 2018 Primary Care Note, the Veteran stated that his back pain had been acting up over the last several weeks; though he noted the pain was tolerable. Then a few months later at a September 2018 Primary Care Note, the Veteran reported that his back pain was not currently bothering him. Considering all the evidence described above from the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, the Board finds that the Veteran’s symptomatology is adequately compensated by the currently-assigned 20 percent disability evaluation. During this period, the evidence of record does not demonstrate that the Veteran’s symptomatology warranted an evaluation in excess of 20 percent. The Veteran’s forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was shown to be greater than 30 degrees (but not greater than 60 degrees) with only 5 to 10 degrees additional functional loss following repetitive use. Furthermore, for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, there is no indication of any ankylosis (favorable or unfavorable), scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. The Veteran exhibited muscle spasms and guarding of the thoracolumbar spine, but this did not result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. There is also no evidence of any incapacitating episodes due to the degenerative disc disease disability, and the Veteran has not provided any evidence that he was prescribed bedrest by a physician during that period. Therefore, to the extent the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s claim must be denied. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved as to this issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3. c. The Period Beginning March 23, 2019 For the period beginning March 23, 2019, the Veteran is currently assigned an evaluation of 40 percent for his degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) based on a VA examination from March 23, 2019. At the March 2019 VA examination, the VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran with lumbosacral strain and lumbar degenerative disc disease. The Veteran reported that his back pain had gotten progressively worse since his active service. He rated his pain as 7 to 8 out of 10 on a daily basis. The Veteran had forward flexion range of motion (ROM) to 30 degrees; extension ROM to 10 degrees; right and left lateral flexion ROM to 5 degrees; and right and left lateral rotation ROM to 10 degrees. The ROM itself contributed to functional loss. Pain was noted on examination, and it caused functional loss. Moderate pain was exhibited in forward flexion, extension, right and left lateral flexion, and right and left lateral rotation ROM in the midline lumbar spine. The VA examiner noted that this was consistent with lumbar degenerative disc disease. At the March 2019 VA examination, the Veteran was able to perform repetitive use testing with at least three repetitions. There was additional loss of function or ROM after three repetitions. After repetitive use, the Veteran had forward flexion ROM to 20 degrees, extension ROM to 5 degrees, right and left lateral flexion ROM to 5 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation ROM to 10 degrees. After repetitive use over time, the Veteran had forward flexion ROM to 20 degrees, extension ROM to 5 degrees, right and left lateral flexion ROM to 5 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation ROM to 10 degrees. The Veteran reported flare-ups of the thoracolumbar spine one or two days a month. The examination was not being conducted during a flare-up, but the VA examiner stated that the examination was neither medically consistent or inconsistent with the Veteran’s statements describing functional loss during flare-up. Pain was noted to significantly limit functional ability with flare-ups. During a flare-up, the examiner opined that the Veteran had forward flexion ROM to 20 degrees, extension ROM to 5 degrees, right and left lateral flexion ROM to 5 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation ROM to 10 degrees. An October 2014 MRI was reported to show broad-based disc bulging in the lumbar spine with no evidence of significant central stenosis. The MRI also showed mild bilateral neuroforaminal stenosis at L5-S1, left greater than right. At the March 2019 VA examination, the Veteran had muscle spasms, but this did not result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour. The Veteran had no guarding. Additional factors contributing to the disability included disturbance of locomotion and interference with sitting and standing. The Veteran was noted to have increased lower back pain with sitting, standing, or walking. The Veteran’s muscle strength was normal, except for the right hip flexion, which had active movement against some resistance. The Veteran also had hypoactive reflexes in the bilateral knees and ankles. There was no muscle atrophy or ankylosis. A sensory examination was normal, and a straight leg test was negative. The Veteran did not exhibit intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) of the thoracolumbar spine. The Veteran was noted to regularly use a back brace for his lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. Under the criteria required by Correia v. McDonald. 28 Vet. App. 158, 170 (2016), there was objective evidence of pain in non-weight bearing but not on weight bearing. The VA examiner determined that passive ROM testing could not be performed or was not medically appropriate. At the March 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported having functional loss or functional impairment of the thoracolumbar spine regardless of repetitive use. He stated that lifting hurts his back. The VA examiner found that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine condition impacted his ability to work in that he had a decreased capacity for prolonged standing and lifting. More specifically, the VA examiner stated that the Veteran is limited with standing than more than 45 minutes; he is unable to lift over 25lbs. without pain; and he is limited with prolonged sitting, bending, and twisting secondary to his back condition. Considering the evidence of record for the period after March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine was 30 degrees or less. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran has been appropriately assigned a 40 percent evaluation since March 23, 2019. The Board finds that, for the period after March 23, 2019, the Veteran’s symptomatology related to his lumbar spine disability does not commensurate to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent. The Veteran has not exhibited any ankylosis at any point during the entire period on appeal. Additionally, the Veteran has not had intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) or incapacitating episodes at any point during the entire period on appeal. In summary, concerning the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability, the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the period prior to February 28, 2014; the preponderance of the evidence is against an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019; and the preponderance of the evidence is also against the assignment of an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for the period beginning March 23, 2019. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain) for the period prior to February 28, 2014 must be denied; the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019 must be denied; and the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 40 percent for the period beginning March 23, 2019 must be denied. See 38 C.F.R. § § 4.7, 4.71a, DCs 5242. 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 claims, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). 2. Right Lower Extremity Radiculopathy and Left Lower Extremity Radiculopathy Disabilities The Veteran is currently service connected for right lower extremity radiculopathy associated with degenerative disc disease and left lower extremity radiculopathy associated with degenerative disc disease. Under this appeal, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to a compensable evaluation for both a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability and a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period prior to February 28, 2014. He also contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period beginning February 28, 2014. Additionally, he contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019; and he contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period beginning March 23, 2019. The claims concerning the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy disability and left lower extremity radiculopathy disability arose out of the Veteran’s current claim of increased rating for a degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain). The Veteran filed his claim of increased rating for a degenerative disc disability in May 2009. The Veteran was granted service connection for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability with an evaluation of 10 percent in a June 2019 rating decision, effective February 28, 2019 (the date of one of the Veteran’s VA examinations). In the same rating decision, the Veteran was also granted service connection for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability with an evaluation of 10 percent for the period between February 28, 2019 and March 23, 2019; and he was given an evaluation of 20 percent for the left lower extremity radiculopathy disability for the period beginning March 23, 2019, the date of the Veteran’s latest VA examination. Under DC 8520, which concerns disabilities of the sciatic nerve, a 10 percent rating is warranted for a mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve; a 20 percent evaluation is warranted for moderate incomplete paralysis; a 40 percent evaluation is warranted for moderately severe incomplete paralysis; and a 60 percent evaluation is warranted for severe incomplete paralysis with marked muscular atrophy. An 80 percent evaluation is warranted if there is complete paralysis, defined as where the foot dangles and drops with no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, or where flexion of the knee weakened or (very rarely) lost. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, DC 8520 (2018). The Board acknowledges that the terms “mild”, “moderate”, “moderately severe”, and “severe” are not defined under VA law and appear to have no commonly accepted medical definition. Rather than applying a mechanical formula, the Board must evaluate all of the evidence to the end that its decisions are “equitable and just.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.6. Use of terminology such as “severe” by VA examiners and others, although evidence to be considered by the Board, is not dispositive of an issue. a. Right and Left Lower Extremity Radiculopathy for the Period Prior to February 28, 2014 At the Veteran’s January 2010 VA examination for his spine, the Veteran denied any radicular symptoms. However, in a Primary Care Note from February 18, 2010, the examiner gave an impression of lumbar radiculopathy. The Veteran’s pain radiated into his leg. At a March 2010 Orthopedic Progress Note, the Veteran reported pain on the left with radiation down his buttock and lateral thigh, but never below the knee. Also, an October 2010 Orthopedic Progress Note reports that the Veteran had radicular lower extremity pain in the left anterior thigh. In a March 2011 Orthopedic progress note, the Veteran reported some radiation down into the leg. In a May 2011 Orthopedic Progress Note, the Veteran was noted to have nonspecific radiating symptoms primarily down the left leg. In a June 2011 Physical Medicine Rehab Consult, the Veteran was noted to have radicular symptoms of pain, numbness, or tingling. Therefore, the first factually ascertainable evidence of left lower extremity radiculopathy within the appeal period is from February 18, 2010. In an August 29, 2011 Orthopedic Progress Note, the Veteran stated that he sometimes had minimal pain that radiated down the right posterior thigh. He again reported radiating pain down his right thigh in a December 2011 Orthopedic Progress Note. Therefore, the first factually ascertainable evidence of right lower extremity radiculopathy within the appeal period is from August 29, 2011. In an August 2012 Anesthesia Pain Procedure Note for a lumbar epidural, the Veteran had pre-operative and post-operative diagnoses of lower extremity radiculopathy. The pain was reported to radiate into the bilateral posterior thighs. The record reflects that he received regular epidural injections to treat his radiculopathy and other back-related conditions. A May 2013 Physical Medicine Rehab Consult again noted radicular symptoms of pain, numbness, or tingling. Based on the above, the evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran exhibited mild left lower extremity radiculopathy starting on February 18, 2010; and he exhibited mild right lower extremity radiculopathy starting on August 29, 2011. Therefore, the Veteran must be granted a 10 percent evaluation for his left lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period between February 18, 2010 and February 28, 2014. The Veteran must also be granted a 10 percent evaluation for his right lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period between August 29, 2011 and February 28, 2014. There is no evidence of record demonstrating any left lower extremity radiculopathy prior to February 18, 2010; and there is no evidence of record demonstrating any right lower extremity radiculopathy prior to August 29, 2011. Therefore, to the extent the Veteran contends that he is entitled to a compensable disability evaluation for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability prior to February 18, 2010 or a compensable disability evaluation for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability prior to August 29, 2011, the Veteran’s claims must be denied. Additionally, looking at the evidence of record for the period between February 18, 2010 and February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy disability was never noted to be more than mild. Therefore, to the extent that the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period between February 18, 2010 and February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s claim must be denied. Similarly, looking at the evidence of record for the period between August 29, 2011 and February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy disability was never noted to be more than mild. Therefore, to the extent that the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period between August 29, 2011 and February 28, 2014, the Veteran’s claim must be denied. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved as to these issues. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3. b. Right Lower Extremity Radiculopathy for the Period from February 28, 2014 to the Present. As mentioned earlier, under this appeal, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability (associated with degenerative disc disease) for the period beginning February 28, 2014. At the Veteran’s February 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported pain that radiated to both lower extremities with numbness and tingling of the feet. The pain was found to be mild bilateral intermittent pain with mild bilateral numbness. The Veteran’s radiculopathy was noted to involve the L4, L5, S1, S2, and S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) bilaterally. At the Veteran’s March 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported pain that radiates down both legs, left greater than right. On the right lower extremity, the Veteran’s radicular pain was found to be mild and intermittent with mild bilateral paresthesias and mild bilateral numbness. The Veteran’s radiculopathy in the right lower extremity was again noted to involve the L4, L5, S1, S2, and S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve). The Board has additionally reviewed the balance of the Veteran’s other medical treatment records, and the findings are substantially similar to those noted in his VA examinations. The evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy affecting his sciatic nerve is shown to be mild in nature beginning on August 29, 2011 and continuing to the present. The record contains no evidence that the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy was ever more than mild. There is no evidence of any moderate, moderately severe, or severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve in the right lower extremity during the period on appeal. There is likewise no evidence of complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve during the period on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § § 4.7, 4.124a, DC 8520. Based on the above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s right lower extremity radiculopathy disability at any point during the appeal period. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a right lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period beginning February 24, 2014 must be denied. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved as to this issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3. c. Left Lower Extremity Radiculopathy for the Period Between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019 As mentioned earlier, under this appeal, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019. At the Veteran’s February 2014 VA examination, the Veteran reported pain that radiated to both lower extremities with numbness and tingling of the feet. The pain was found to be mild bilateral intermittent pain with mild bilateral numbness. The Veteran’s radiculopathy was noted to involve the L4, L5, S1, S2, and S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve) bilaterally. The Board has additionally reviewed the balance of the Veteran’s other medical treatment records from the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019, and the findings are substantially similar to those noted in his February 2014 VA examination. The evidence of record demonstrates that the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy affecting his sciatic nerve is shown to be mild in nature beginning on February 18, 2010 and continuing to March 23, 2019. The record from between February 18, 2010 and March 23, 2019 contains no evidence that the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy disability was ever more than mild during that period. There is no evidence of any moderate, moderately severe, or severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve during this period between February 18, 2010 and March 23, 2019. There is also no evidence of complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve at any point during the period on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § § 4.7, 4.124a, DC 8520. Based on the above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a disability evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy disability during period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period between February 28, 2014 and March 23, 2019 must be denied. There is no reasonable doubt to be resolved as to this issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b), 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3. d. Left Lower Extremity Radiculopathy for the Period Beginning March 23, 2019 As mentioned earlier, under this appeal, the Veteran contends that he is entitled to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period beginning March 23, 2019. At the Veteran’s March 2019 VA examination, the Veteran reported pain that radiates down both legs, left greater than right. On the left lower extremity, the Veteran’s radicular pain was found to be moderate and intermittent with mild bilateral paresthesias and mild bilateral numbness. The Veteran’s radiculopathy in the left lower extremity was noted to involve the L4, L5, S1, S2, and S3 nerve roots (sciatic nerve). The evidence of record for the period beginning on March 23, 2019 demonstrates that the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy affecting his sciatic nerve is shown to be moderate in nature. The record contains no evidence that the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy was ever more than moderate during that period. There is no evidence of any moderately severe or severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve at any point during the period on appeal. There is also no evidence of complete paralysis of the sciatic nerve at any point during the period on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § § 4.7, 4.124a, DC 8520. Based on the above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the assignment of a disability evaluation in excess of 20 percent for the Veteran’s left lower extremity radiculopathy disability during the period beginning on March 23, 2019. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to an evaluation in excess of 20 percent for a left lower extremity radiculopathy disability associated with degenerative disc disease for the period beginning on March 23, 2019 must be denied. 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 claims, that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § § 3.102, 4.3. I. Total Disability Rating Based on Individual Unemployability (TDIU) The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to his service connected disabilities. The Veteran submitted his TDIU application form in May 2010, while his claim of increased disability rating for a degenerative disc disease disability was pending. The August 2010 rating decision currently on appeal denied his claim for a TDIU. A claim for a TDIU is a potential part of an increased rating claim when such claim is expressly raised by the Veteran or reasonably raised by the record. A TDIU may be assigned by the Board in the first instance where the schedular rating is less than total if it is found that the disabled person is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as a result of 1) a single service-connected disability ratable at 60 percent or more, or 2) as a result of two or more disabilities, provided at least one disability is ratable at 40 percent or more, and there is sufficient additional service-connected disability to bring the combined rating to 70 percent or more. See 38 C.F.R. § § 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). Furthermore, it is the policy of VA that all veterans who are unable to secure and follow a substantially gainful occupation by reason of service-connected disability shall be rated totally disabled. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b). Thus, if a veteran fails to meet the applicable percentage standards enunciated in 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(a), an extra-schedular rating is for consideration where the veteran is unemployable due to service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b); see also Fanning v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 225 (1993). Neither non-service-connected disabilities nor advancing age may be considered in the determination. 38 C.F.R. § § 3.341, 4.19; Van Hoose v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 361, 363 (1993). Thus, the Board may not consider the effects of the Veteran’s non-service-connected disabilities on his ability to function. With regard to whether the Veteran is entitled to a TDIU pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.16(b), the Board has no authority to award a TDIU under § 4.16(b) in the first instance. Rather, the rating board must submit to the Director of Compensation Service for extraschedular consideration all cases of veterans who are unemployable by reason of service-connected disabilities, but who fail to meet the percentage standards set forth in § 4.16(a). Bowling v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 1, 10 (2001). If the Director denies the extraschedular TDIU, the Board has jurisdiction to grant or deny the appeal, or remand for additional development, and the Director’s decision is the same as the RO’s as far as the Board’s jurisdiction and standard of review. Wages v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 233, 238 (2015). In this case, service connection has been established for the Veteran’s degenerative disc disease disability (previously evaluated as chronic low back strain), left lower extremity radiculopathy disability (associated with degenerative disc disease), and right lower extremity radiculopathy disability (associated with degenerative disc disease). The Veteran currently has a disability rating of 40 percent for his degenerative disc disease disability, a disability rating of 20 percent for his left lower extremity radiculopathy disability, and a disability rating of 10 percent for his right lower extremity radiculopathy disability. He has a combined disability rating of 60 percent based on these three disabilities. The Veteran does not have any other disabilities for which service connection has been established. These three disabilities must be considered as on disability for purposes of determining whether the Veteran satisfies the ratings requirements of section 4.16(a). As they combine to 60 percent, he does satisfy the section 4.16(a) requirements from the date that the disabilities were assigned the ratings that reached the combined 60 percent level. This however is not particularly significant in this case for the reasons stated in the following paragraphs. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities preclude him from securing or following substantially gainful employment. As such, the Veteran is not entitled to a schedular TDIU, and referral for extraschedular consideration is not warranted. In the Veteran’s June 2009 claim for an increased disability rating for his degenerative disc disease disability, the Veteran stated that he was having problems keeping employment due to his back pain. In the Veteran’s May 2010 TDIU application form, the Veteran stated that he left his last job because of his disability, and he had tried to obtain employment since he became too disabled to work. He indicated that his education went as far as the first year of college. He also reported that he has training in basic quality cooking, having taken a 6-week training course; and he has taken typing classes. In May 2010, the Veteran also submitted his resume, which indicated that he has been self-employed as a handyman from 2004 to the present. In the job description on the resume, the Veteran stated that, as a handyman, he has performed landscaping work, to include planting flowers, and he has professionally cut large grassy areas. He also performed work edging and mulching and doing other exterior work. The resume notes that the Veteran’s objective is to obtain employment using his many years of experience in the maintenance or cooking area and to contribute and grow in a learning environment. In an August 2010 statement, the Veteran said he does handyman work on the side when he can get it. He reported that, in the past 12 months, he had worked a total of three months for 2 to 6 hours a day and 2 to 3 days a week wherever he can find work. In a statement from August 16, 2014, the Veteran stated that he could not work more than 27 hours a week. In a phone call to VA on August 20, 2014, the Veteran stated that his back pain makes it difficult to maintain gainful employment. In October 2014, the Veteran submitted an updated TDIU application in which he stated that his lower back disability prevents him from securing or following substantially gainful occupation. He reported that his disability affected his full-time employment in January 2010. When asked when he became too disabled to work, the Veteran replied that this was unknown. He also reported that he was currently employed with a restaurant, where he had been working 26 hours per week since August 2010. In the October 2014 TDIU application form, when asked whether he left his last job because of his disability, the Veteran replied in the negative. He stated that he works in the food service. The Veteran reported that he has completed his education through the second year of college. He stated that he did not have other education and training before he was too disabled to work, and he has not had any education or training since he became too disabled to work. At the Veteran’s January 2010 VA examination, the Veteran reported that he had been working as a self-employed landscaper, and he had worked the previous summer doing weed removal. There was no evidence of adverse impact on activities of daily living or occupation, and the Veteran noted that he walked three miles a day for exercise. At a June 2011 Physical Medicine Rehab Consult, the Veteran reported working 2 days a week as a server. At a December 2011 Physical Medicine Rehab Consult, the Veteran stated that he worked at a carving station at a restaurant, which involved standing for long periods of time; and he noted he did not have any heavy lifting to do at work. In a November 2011 Addendum, the Veteran reported that he had been working at a restaurant for 5 to 6 hours a day, five days a week for the past year. At the Veteran’s February 2014 VA examination, the examiner found that the Veteran’s thoracolumbar spine (back) disability did not impact his ability to work. The Veteran reported working as a display cook, and he was able to work through the pain. At the Veteran’s March 2019 VA examination, the VA examiner determined that the Veteran’s back condition impacted his ability to work in that he has a decreased capacity for prolonged standing and lifting. More specifically, the Veteran is limited with standing more than 45 minutes, and he is unable to lift more than 25 lbs without pain. He is also limited with prolonged sitting, bending, and twisting secondary to his back condition. Based on the evidence described above, the Board finds that, although the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities may negatively impact his employability, they do not preclude his participation in a substantially gainful occupation. The record predominantly reflects that the Veteran has had trouble maintaining full time employment because his positions of employment up to this point have required him to engage in a substantial amount of physical activity involving prolonged standing or other physical labor. Although the Veteran would not be able to regularly perform tasks that involve prolonged standing or sitting or other laborious activity such as heavy lifting, the Veteran would not be precluded from performing work that primarily involved desk work or sitting or otherwise required minimal time on his feet and allowed for frequent breaks. His educational and work background is not so limited as to preclude occupations of this nature. The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran is unable to secure or follow a substantially gainful occupation as the result of his service-connected disabilities. Therefore, the Board finds that entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is not warranted at this time. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.340, 3.341, 4.16(a). (Continued on the next page)   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); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3. JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Dawn A. Leung, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.