Citation Nr: 21002780 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 16-07 195 DATE: January 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for right hand disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right hip disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left hip disability is denied. Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is denied. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is granted. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for thoracolumbar strain, with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), is denied. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with torn meniscus is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for chronic rhinitis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that a right-hand disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. 2. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a right hip disability, other than his already service-connected radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. 3. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a left hip disability, other than his already service-connected radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. 4. The Veteran does not have right ear hearing loss disability per VA regulations. 5. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, his left ear hearing loss is at least as likely as not related to his service. 6. Since the initial grant of service connection, the Veteran’s thoracolumbar strain, with IVDS, was manifested by a range of motion in the lumbar spine consisting of no less than forward flexion to 90 degrees, extension to 30 degrees, right lateral flexion to 20 degrees, left lateral flexion to 30 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation to 30 degrees; a combined range of motion of 230 degrees; with pain on right lateral flexion not resulting in or causing functional loss; no muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; and no periods of bed rest being prescribed by a physician. 7. Since the initial grant of service connection, the Veteran’s left knee strain with torn meniscus was manifested by a range of motion consisting of no less than extension to 0 degrees and flexion to 135 degrees; no crepitus; no pain on weight bearing; mild tenderness to palpation at the left lateral meniscus; 5/5 muscle strength; no instability; complaints of intermittent pain and stiffness; and a healed medial meniscal tear. 8. Since the initial grant of service connection, the Veteran’s chronic rhinitis was not manifested by a greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side; and no polyps. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right hand disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left hip disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 4. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 5. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 6. The criteria for an initial evaluation in excess 10 percent for thoracolumbar strain, with IVDS, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5237, 5243. 7. The criteria for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with torn meniscus have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5003, 5260. 8. The criteria for an initial compensable evaluation for chronic rhinitis have not been met. 38U.S.C. §§1155, 5107; 38C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.14, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 2010 and January 2013. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Combat Infantryman Badge, the Army Achievement Medal, and the Afghanistan Campaign Medal with Campaign Star. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In June 2019, a video conference hearing was held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of this hearing has been added to the record. In January 2020, the Board remanded this matter for additional evidentiary development. The RO subsequently obtained updated treatment records, the requested VA medical opinions concerning his service connection claims, and the requested VA examinations to determine the severity of the Veteran’s service-connected thoracic spine, left knee, and chronic rhinitis disabilities. The Board finds these actions to be in substantial compliance with the Board’s remand directives. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (holding that a remand confers on the claimant, as a matter of law, the right to compliance with the remand order); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999) (holding that substantial, rather than strict, compliance with remand directives is required). In a September 2020 brief, the Veteran’s attorney noted that the RO had granted service connection for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities. The Veteran’s attorney argued that the effective date assigned for this disability is incorrect, and that he would “appeal this erroneous effective date decision to the extent that it is not corrected through his currently pending appeal.” Because the grant of service connection represents a complete grant of benefits sought on appeal, and as that decision was made after February 19, 2019, the Board is not able to address that issue in this decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.2. Thankfully, sufficient time remains for the Veteran to pursue any desire avenue for appeal under the modernized review system. Service Connection Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Evidence of continuity of symptomatology from the time of service until the present is required where the chronicity of a chronic condition manifested during service either has not been established or might reasonably be questioned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1340 (Fed.Cir.2013) (holding that only conditions listed as chronic diseases in § 3.309(a) may be considered for service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Moreover, where a veteran served continuously for 90 days or more during active service, and sensorineural hearing loss or arthritis become manifest to a degree of 10 percent within one year from date of termination of such service, such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. This presumption is rebuttable by affirmative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309. 1. Entitlement to service connection for right hand disability. The Veteran contends that he has a right-hand disability related to his military service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. Based upon a longitudinal review of the record, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran has a right-hand disability which began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The March 2020 VA examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s claimed right-hand disability was incurred or caused by his military service. In rendering this opinion, the VA examiner considered the evidence of record, including the Veteran’s statements, prior to forming this opinion. The examiner physically examined the Veteran and also supported the opinion provided with a sufficient rationale. Specifically, the VA examiner indicated that the Veteran’s right hand symptoms are subjective only. Physical examination of the right hand was normal. There was no loss of motion, strength or sensation in the Veteran’s bilateral arms and hands. The VA examiner noted that there was no objective evidence of a chronic condition and no objective evidence of a chronic arm or hand condition. The VA examiner also noted that x-ray examination of the Veteran’s right hand, performed in 2013, was normal. While the Veteran is competent to report intermittent symptoms of stiffness in his right hand and fingers, the preponderance of the evidence does not support the conclusion that he has a chronic right-hand disability related to his service. The Veteran is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case or determine that his symptoms were manifestations of a disability related to his military service. The issue is medically complex, as it requires knowledge of muscle and body mechanics and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). On this point, the March 2020 VA examination of the hand revealed no objective evidence of a chronic arm or hand condition. Physical examination of the right hand was normal. Finally, there is no showing of a functional impairment of earning capacity as a result of this claimed disability. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. Thus, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran has a right-hand disability which began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 2. Entitlement to service connection for right hip disability. 3. Entitlement to service connection for left hip disability. The Veteran is seeking service connection for right and left hip disabilities. In August 2020, the RO issued a rating decision which granted service connection for left lower extremity radiculopathy, sciatica; and right lower extremity radiculopathy, sciatica. Thus, in addressing the Veteran’s claims herein for bilateral hip disabilities, the initial question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current right or left hip disability, other than his already service-connected radiculopathy of the lower extremities. Based upon a longitudinal review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a right or left hip disability and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The March 2020 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined his bilateral hip pain is related to his already service-connected radiculopathy and not a separate right or left hip disability. The March 2020 VA examination of the hip and thigh concluded that the Veteran’s bilateral hips were normal. Physical examination revealed his range of motion and strength in the right and left hip were intact, and x-ray examination of the right and left hip, performed in August 2016, did not reflect evidence of any hip joint pathology or osseous abnormality. The VA examiner also noted that the Veteran’s reported hip pain and intermittent numbness and tingling were more consistent with radiculopathy. Further, despite consistent treatment since his discharge from the service, the Veteran’s post service treatment records do not contain a diagnosis of right or left hip disability, other than his service-connected bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. While the Veteran believes he has a current bilateral hip disability, other than radiculopathy of the lower extremities, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The March 2020 VA examiner considered the evidence of record, including the Veteran’s statements, prior to forming this opinion. The examiner physically examined the Veteran and also supported the opinion provided with a sufficient rationale. Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. 4. Entitlement to service connection for right ear hearing loss is denied. While the Veteran contends that he has bilateral hearing loss, the determination of whether his hearing loss meets VA standards to qualify as a hearing loss disability must be supported by testing compliant with VA regulations. For purposes of applying the laws administered by VA, impaired hearing will be considered to be a disability when the auditory threshold in any of the frequencies 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, 4000 Hertz is 40 decibels or greater; or when the auditory thresholds for at least three of the frequencies at 500, 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Hertz are 26 decibels or greater; or when speech recognition scores using the Maryland CNC Test are less than 94 percent. 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. As for his claimed right ear hearing loss, the symptoms the Veteran has reported are not supported by medical professional testing meeting the VA standards for a disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.385. While the Veteran is competent to describe his symptoms, the determination of whether hearing loss meets the criteria for a disability under VA regulations requires specialized medical knowledge or training. The Veteran's statements alone therefore cannot serve as competent evidence of a current disability. To that end, March 2020 and November 2013 VA examinations for hearing loss and tinnitus included audiological testing which did not reflect a hearing loss "disability" for VA purposes pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.385 in the right ear. The Veteran did not have three frequencies at 26 decibels or higher, he did not have a single frequency at 40 decibels or higher, and his speech discrimination score in his right ear was 96 percent. Thus, the Board finds that the most competent evidence of record does not show that the Veteran's reported right ear hearing loss meets the criteria to be considered a disability under VA regulations. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for right ear hearing loss; there is no doubt to be resolved; and service connection for right ear hearing loss must be denied. 5. Entitlement to service connection for left ear hearing loss is denied. As for his left ear hearing loss, the Veteran has been diagnosed with sensorineural hearing loss of the left ear which is considered an organic disease of the nervous system and is recognized as a chronic disease under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); thus, it is subject to the chronic diseases presumption. As to the first element of service connection, a current disability, the record indicates that the Veteran has left ear sensorineural hearing loss for VA compensation purposes as noted on his March 2020 VA audiological examination. As to the second element of service connection, the Veteran's exposure to noise as a combat infantryman in the United States Army is conceded. Thus, the remaining issue is whether his current left ear hearing loss is causally related to the in-service exposure to hazardous noise. In March 2020, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s left ear hearing loss was at least as likely as not incurred in or caused by his military service. In support of this opinion, the VA examiner cited the Veteran’s high noise level exposure during service, and his current left ear hearing loss findings. After resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for left ear hearing loss is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Increased Rating Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule of Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) and are intended to represent the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Other applicable, general policy considerations are: interpreting reports of examination in light of the whole recorded history, reconciling the various reports into a consistent picture so that the current rating many accurately reflect the elements of disability, 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; resolving any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability in favor of the claimant, 38 C.F.R. § 4.3; where there is a questions as to which of two evaluations apply, assigning a higher of the two where the disability pictures more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher rating, 38 C.F.R. § 4.7; and, evaluating functional impairment on the basis of lack of usefulness, and the effects of the disability upon the person’s ordinary activity, 38 C.F.R. § 4.10. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). A claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Thus, separate ratings can be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found - a practice known as "staged" ratings. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). 6. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for thoracolumbar strain, with IDVS. The Veteran is seeking an increased initial evaluation for his thoracolumbar strain, with IDVS. The Veteran’s thoracolumbar strain, with IDVS, has been rated 10 percent disabling under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5237. Under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, a 10 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; or, muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or, vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height. A 20 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or the 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 rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent evaluation is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. Any associated objective neurological abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, are to be evaluated separately under an appropriate diagnostic code. Id. at Note 1. When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and, therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran’s disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.”). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is a factor to be considered with any form of arthritis; however, 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is not limited to disabilities involving arthritis. See Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011). Based upon a longitudinal review of the Veteran’s claims file, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for the Veteran’s lumbosacral strain, with IVDS, at any point during this appeal. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s lay reports of symptoms and that there was functional loss due low back pain and radiculopathy into the lower extremities. However, even considering the Veteran’s lay reports of symptoms and noted functional loss, the degree of additional limitation reflected by his statements would not result in limitation of motion more nearly approximating forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees or a combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees. The Veteran’s March 2020 VA examination of the spine reported that the range of motion exhibited by his lumbar spine, after repeated use over a period of time, consisted of forward flexion to 90 degrees, extension to 30 degrees, right lateral flexion to 20 degrees, left lateral flexion to 30 degrees, and right and left lateral rotation to 30 degrees. This results in a combined range of motion of 230 degrees. The report noted that there was pain on right lateral flexion not resulting in or causing functional loss. There was no muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; and no periods of bed rest being prescribed by a physician. Similar findings were noted on the Veteran’s treatment reports during this appeal period. The November 2013 VA examination of the back also noted a similar range of motion. Consideration has also been given to assigning a rating under the Formula for Rating Intervertebral Disc Syndrome (IVDS) Based on Incapacitating Episodes. The March 2020 VA examination of the spine noted a diagnosis of IVDS. However, the evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran required bed rest prescribed by a physician. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Formula for Rating IVDS Based on Incapacitating Episodes. The Veteran’s March 2020 VA examination of the spine noted that there was no bed rest being prescribed by a physician in the past 12 months. Moreover, no incidents of bed rest were noted in the Veteran’s treatment records during this appeal period. Regarding neurological impairment, the Veteran was recently granted service connection for right and left lower extremity radiculopathy in an August 2020 rating decision, and no disagreement with the initial evaluations assigned to these conditions has been indicated. Moreover, the lay and medical evidence of record is against a finding that the Veteran has any other neurological abnormality associated with his spine disability. For the foregoing reasons, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for lumbosacral strain, with IVDS. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 7. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with torn meniscus. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his left knee strain with torn meniscus. The RO has assigned this condition an initial evaluation of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 5260, used in evaluating limitation of flexion of the knee. Under Diagnostic Code 5260, a noncompensable rating is warranted for flexion limited to 60 degrees. A 10 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 45 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 30 degrees. A 30 percent rating is warranted for flexion limited to 15 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260. When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and, therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (“[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran’s disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria.”). The Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with torn meniscus. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s lay reports of symptoms of pain, stiffness, and grinding in the left knee and that there is functional loss due to pain when trying to run or participate in any physical activity. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, even considering the Veteran’s lay reports of symptoms and noted functional loss, the degree of additional limitation reflected by the statements would not result in limitation of motion more nearly approximating flexion limited to 30 degrees. The March 2020 VA examination of the knee noted the Veteran’s complaints of left knee pain, stiffness, and grinding on physical activity. Physical examination of the left knee revealed a range of motion, after repeated use over a period of time, consisting of extension to 0 degrees and flexion to 135 degrees, with pain. There was no crepitus or no pain on weight bearing. There was mild tenderness to palpation at the left lateral meniscus, 5/5 muscle strength, and no instability. The VA examiner noted that a review of the record indicates that the Veteran’s medial meniscus has healed. The Veteran’s prior VA examination of the knee, conducted in November 2013, noted a range of motion in the left knee consisting of 0 degrees extension to 140 degrees of flexion, with pain beginning at 85 degrees, of flexion. It also noted muscle strength of 5/5, no localized tenderness, no effusion, and stable ligaments. A November 2013 left knee MRI revealed no findings to suggest internal derangement of either knee. It also noted that the medial and lateral menisci were intact. The Board has considered the other Diagnostic Codes pertaining to the knee and leg. Other disability ratings may be assigned only if the symptomatology for a disability is not duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of any other disability. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994); Lyles v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 107 (2017). There is, however, no symptomatology which would warrant the assignment of a separate disability rating. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Codes 5256 through 5259, 5261 through 5263. In conclusion, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for left knee strain with torn meniscus. At no time during the period on appeal did the Veteran demonstrate such limitation of flexion as to warrant a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5260, or show such symptomatology as to warrant a separate service-connected disability. Thus, the functional loss attributable the Veteran’s left knee strain with torn meniscus has been fully considered. In denying such a rating, the Board finds the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.3, 4.7. 8. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for chronic rhinitis. The Veteran asserts that he is entitled to an initial compensable evaluation for his chronic rhinitis. Specifically, he asserts that his rhinitis is manifested by nasal congestion with burning sensation, nasal drip, and difficulty breathing through his nose. The Veteran's chronic rhinitis is rated under Diagnostic Code 6522. A10 percent rating is warranted for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. A maximum, 30 percent rating is warranted for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis with polyps. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in March 2020. The examiner noted the Veteran's diagnosis of chronic rhinitis. Physical examination revealed that the Veteran did not have a greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides and did not have complete obstruction on either side. The report also noted that there was permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates and no evidence of nasal polyps. The Veteran previously underwent a VA examination for sinusitis and rhinitis in November 2013. The examination report noted diagnoses of both sinusitis and rhinitis. Physical examination revealed no current findings, signs or symptoms attributable to chronic sinusitis. As for his rhinitis, the physical examination revealed that the Veteran did not have a greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides and did not have complete obstruction on either side. Physical examination also revealed that there was permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates and no evidence of nasal polyps. X-ray examination of the sinus performed at that time was unremarkable. The Veteran's VA treatment records show that he is being followed for chronic rhinitis, but do not reveal any evidence of obstruction of the nasal passages, or any other findings consistent with an initial compensable rating. The Board has considered the applicability of other Diagnostic Codes for evaluating the disability. However, the Veteran has been specifically diagnosed with chronic rhinitis, and the rating schedule clearly calls for the rating of allergic or vasomotor rhinitis under Diagnostic Code 6522. There is no basis for assigning a separate or alternative compensable evaluation under any alternative Diagnostic Code, to include Diagnostic Code 6502 and 6523. Here, the evidence of record does not contain clinical findings that meet the criteria for an initial compensable evaluation. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's complaints and believes that his chronic rhinitis does cause him impairment. However, VA is bound by the rating criteria and cannot award a higher rating for symptoms that do not meet the rating criteria. The Veteran was afforded VA examinations in March 2020 and November 2013 and his nasal passages were not found to have a greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passages on both sides or complete obstruction of one side. The Veteran's post-service medical records also do not indicate obstruction of the nasal passages. Accordingly, an initial compensable evaluation for chronic rhinitis is denied. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W. Yates, 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.