Citation Nr: 21027637 Decision Date: 05/06/21 Archive Date: 05/06/21 DOCKET NO. 15-07 314 DATE: May 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, claimed as a toe condition, is denied. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, claimed as a toe condition, is denied. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for status post right inguinal herniorrhaphy (residuals from a right inguinal hernia) for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020; and to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent, thereafter, is denied. Entitlement to an initial disability rating of 10 percent, and no higher, for residual scarring associated with right inguinal hernia is granted. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent, for the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a right foot disability, to include a toe condition. 2. The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a left foot disability, to include a toe condition. 3. For the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, the Veteran's residuals from a right inguinal hernia do not result in a right inguinal hernia that is recurrent, readily reducible, and well supported by truss or belt. 4. For the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, the Veteran's residuals from a right inguinal hernia includes a small postoperative recurrent and not readily reducible right inguinal hernia. 5. For the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, his status post right inguinal herniorrhaphy scar is painful; deep and nonlinear scars covering an area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 sq. cm), superficial and nonlinear scars covering an area or areas of at least 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.), or any disabling effects not considered under Diagnostic Codes 7800-7804 have not been shown. 6. For the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, the competent evidence of record shows that the Veteran's status post right inguinal herniorrhaphy scar is painful; deep and nonlinear scars covering an area or areas of at least 6 square inches (39 sq. cm), superficial and nonlinear scars covering an area or areas of at least 144 square inches (929 sq. cm.), or any disabling effects not considered under Diagnostic Codes 7800-7804 have not been shown. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 1110, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5.107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2020). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1101, 1110, 1113, 1131, 1137, 5103, 5103A, 5.107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2020). 3. For the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, the criteria for an initial compensable disability rating for residuals of a right inguinal hernia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7338 (2020). 4. For the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for residuals of a right inguinal hernia have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7338 (2020). 5. For the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, the criteria for an initial disability rating of 10 percent, and no higher, for status post right inguinal herniorrhaphy scar have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, Diagnostic Code, 7804 (2020). 6. For the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for status post right inguinal herniorrhaphy scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7804 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 2002 to May 2003, and from January 2005 to May 2006. He also served on active duty for training in the United States Air Force from November 2008 to April 2009. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Iraq Campaign Medal. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2014 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia. In July 2014 the Veteran submitted a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) and in January 2015 the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC). In February 2015 the Veteran timely filed a substantive appeal. In a June 2020 decision, the Board remanded these issues for additional development, which has been substantially completed. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). The Board also acknowledges that while the Veteran's claim for a higher disability rating for residuals of right inguinal hernia was in appellate status, the AOJ obtained a VA opinion in November 2018 in which the examiner asserted that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran has a left inguinal hernia secondary to his service-connected residuals of right inguinal hernia. It does not appear that this issue has been addressed or developed by the RO, therefore, the Board does not have jurisdiction over the matter. Should the Veteran wish to file a formal claim for service connection for left inguinal hernia residuals, he should do so on the requisite form. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right foot disability, claimed as a toe condition, is denied. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a left foot disability, claimed as a toe condition, is denied. The Veteran is seeking service connection for left and right toe conditions. Specially, he contends that he was treated for cellulitis during service. See February 2015 VA Form 9. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, a veteran must show: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Additionally, where a veteran served 90 days or more of active service, and certain chronic diseases become manifest to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year after the date of separation from 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. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). In the absence of proof of a present disability, to include symptoms that cause functional impairment of earning capacity, there can be no valid claim. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997). However, the requirement for service connection that a current disability be present is satisfied when a veteran has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim even though the disability resolves prior to the Secretary's adjudication of the claim. McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 322-23 (2007); see also Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013). As a layperson, the Veteran is competent to report the symptoms he has experienced. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Lay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The competence of lay testimony depends on the nature of the condition. See Young v. McDonald, 766 F.3d 1348, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2014). The Board must assess the credibility and weight of all the evidence, including the medical evidence, to determine its probative value, accounting for evidence, which it finds to be more persuasive or unpersuasive, and providing reasons for rejecting any evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Equal weight is not accorded to each piece of evidence contained in the record; not every item of evidence has the same probative value. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert, supra. The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim of service connection for a left and/or a right foot disability. Specifically, although the Veteran's service treatment records (STR) show treatment for a skin symptom in the left toe during service, see May 2005 STR, the Veteran's post service treatment records, which cover more than 15 years of treatment, do not document complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis of a left or right foot disability, to include toe conditions. Indeed, the medical records do not document, nor has the Veteran asserted, symptoms indicative of a current left or right foot disability, to include pain, during the period on appeal, or any other symptoms that cause functional impairment of earning capacity. Absent competent evidence of a current disability or symptoms in either foot that cause functional impairment of earning capacity, service connection for a left and/or right foot disability is not warranted. The Board acknowledges that VA has not provided the Veteran with an examination or opinion in connection with the claim for service connection for a left and/or right foot disability. VA must provide a medical examination when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). In this case, the evidence does not show competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability. For a VA examination to be warranted, all the McLendon criteria have to be met, and in this case at least one element is not met. Therefore, entitlement to a VA examination is not warranted for these service-connection claims. In reaching this determination, the Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements regarding his left and right toe conditions. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report the subjective symptoms and functional limitations he experiences regarding his service-connected disabilities. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994); see also Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case the record does not reflect that the Veteran has contended that he experiences a current disability or pain and associated functional impairment in either his left or right foot. Rather, the Veteran asserts that he was treated for a bilateral foot condition during service. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran has a current left or right foot disability, to include any symptoms causing functional impairment of earning capacity, at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Accordingly, the initial requirements for service connection for a left and right disabilities are not met and the Veteran's claims must be denied. Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 322-23 (2007). Increased Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by evaluating the extent to which a veteran's service-connected disability adversely affects his ability to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment, by comparing his symptomatology with the criteria set forth in the Schedule for Rating Disabilities (rating schedule). 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10. If two evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that evaluation; otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Separate evaluations may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found. In other words, the evaluations may be "staged." Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (staged ratings are appropriate when the factual findings show distinct period where the service- connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings.); see also Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (2001). The assignment of a particular diagnostic code is "completely dependent on the facts of a particular case." See Butts v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 532, 538 (1993). One diagnostic code may be more appropriate than another based on such factors as an individual's relevant medical history, the diagnosis and demonstrated symptomatology. Any change in a diagnostic code by a VA adjudicator must be specifically explained. See Pernorio v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 625, 629 (1992). Furthermore, the selection of diagnostic codes or applicable rating criteria is not protected and may be appropriately revised if the action does not result in the reduction of compensation. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.951, 3.957. The Board has reviewed the entire record but will only discuss the evidence necessary to explain its decision. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (the Board must review the entire record but does not have to discuss each piece of evidence); see Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (2000) (the law requires only that the Board address its reasons for rejecting evidence favorable to the Veteran). In rendering a decision on appeal, the Board must analyze the credibility and probative value of the evidence, account for the evidence which it finds to be persuasive or unpersuasive and provide the reasons for its rejection of any material evidence favorable to the claimant. See Gabrielson v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 36, 39-40 (1994); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). The Board determinations with respect to the weight and credibility of evidence are factual determinations going to the probative value of the evidence. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall resolve reasonable doubt in favor of the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 49. 3. Entitlement to an initial compensable disability rating for residuals from a right inguinal hernia for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020; and to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent, thereafter, is denied. The Veteran is seeking a higher disability rating for his service-connected right hernia. Specifically, he contends that he had surgery while on active duty. See September 2014 NOD. Here, the Veteran has been assigned an initial noncompensable disability rating for his service-connected hernia residuals for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, and a 30 percent, thereafter, under Diagnostic Code 7338. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114. Under Diagnostic Code 7338, a noncompensable evaluation is warranted for a hernia that is small, reducible, or without true hernia protrusion; or that is not operated on but is still remediable. A 10 percent evaluation is warranted for recurrent postoperative hernias, readily reducible and well supported by truss or belt. A 30 percent evaluation is warranted for recurrent postoperative hernias or unopened irremediable hernias, not well supported by truss, or not readily reducible. A 60 percent evaluation is warranted for large, recurrent postoperative hernias that are not well supported under ordinary conditions and not readily reducible when considered inoperable. Turning to the evidence of record, apart from an April 2015 report of mild pain when lifting heavy objects from time to time, VA treatment records are silent for complaints or treatment for residuals of a right inguinal hernia. In June 2014 and October 2015, the Veteran was afforded VA examinations. The Veteran was found to have a history of inguinal hernia and past surgery with post-surgery complications. On examination, no hernia was detected and there was no indication for a supporting belt or truss. In a September 2018 VA examination, the examiner asserted that the Veteran had a healed surgical area and did not require continuous medication. In a November 2020 VA examination, the examiner asserted that the Veteran's disability had progressed. The Veteran was found to have a small not readily reducible hernia, that appeared operable and remediable, but with no indication for a supporting belt or truss. Following a review of the applicable legal criteria and the entirety of the evidence of record, the Board finds that higher disability ratings for residuals of right inguinal hernia are not warranted in this case. Specifically, for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, the evidence of record, to include lay assertions, treatment records, and VA examinations, does not show that the Veteran's right inguinal hernia was manifested by a postoperative recurrent, readily reducible, and well supported by a truss or belt. Accordingly, a higher disability rating of 10 percent under Diagnostic Code 7338, which contemplates such symptoms, is not warranted. Regarding the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, the evidence of record to include lay assertions, treatment records, and VA examinations, shows that the Veteran's disability progressed, but does not show that the Veteran's disability manifested as a large, recurrent postoperative hernia that was not well supported under ordinary conditions and not readily reducible when considered inoperable. Rather, the Veteran's disability manifested as a small not readily reducible hernia, that appeared operable and remediable, but with no indication for a supporting belt or truss. Accordingly, the Veteran's disability picture is most closely approximated by his currently assigned 30 percent disability rating, which contemplates such symptomology and a higher disability rating of 60 percent is not warranted. In reaching the above determinations, the Board has considered the Veteran's competent lay assertions, to include his reports of pain with lifting. The Veteran is certainly competent to describe his observations and the Board finds that his statements are credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (noting that personal knowledge is "that which comes to the witness through the use of his senses-that which is heard, felt, seen, smelled, or tasted"). However, the Board finds that the objective medical findings by skilled professionals, which incorporate the Veteran's competent assertions, provide the most persuasive evidence regarding the limitations posed by the Veteran's right inguinal hernia residuals. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and entitlement to an initial compensable disability for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, and to a disability rating in excess of 30 percent, thereafter, is not warranted. 4. Entitlement to a disability rating of 10 percent, and no higher, for residual scarring associated with right inguinal hernia is granted. 5. Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 10 percent, for the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020, is denied. The Veteran is seeking a higher rating for his service-connected scar. Specifically, he contends that his scar is occasionally irritating from time to time. See February 2015 VA Form 9. Here, the Veteran has been assigned a noncompensable disability for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020 under Diagnostic Code 7804; and a 10 percent disability rating thereafter. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. In evaluating scar residuals, the Board notes that during the appeal period, changes were made to certain Diagnostic Codes under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Effective August 13, 2018, VA amended its regulations governing skin disabilities. VA's intent is that the claims pending prior to the effective date will be considered under both old and new rating criteria, and whatever criteria is more favorable to the Veteran will be applied. For applications filed on or after the effective date, only the new criteria will be applied. 83 Fed. Reg. 32592 (July 13, 2018). As the Veteran filed his claim before the August 13, 2018 effective date, the Board will consider whether either the old or new rating criteria is more favorable to the Veteran. Under the old rating criteria, Diagnostic Code 7805 provided that other scars (including linear scars) and other effects of scars evaluated under Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, 7802, and 7804 require the evaluation of any disabling effect(s) not considered in a rating provided under Diagnostic Codes 7800-7804 under an appropriate Diagnostic Code. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805 (2017). The Board notes that this diagnostic code is largely unchanged under the new amendments apart from the replacement of the phrase "(including linear scars)" with "and other effects of scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7804." 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805 (August 13, 2018). Diagnostic Code 7800 (which was unchanged by the 2018 amendments), contemplates scars of the head, face, or neck. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7800. Under Diagnostic Code 7800, for disfigurement of the head, face, or neck, a 10 percent disability rating is warranted for scarring with one characteristic of disfigurement. A 30 percent disability rating is warranted with visible or palpable tissue loss and either gross distortion or asymmetry of one feature or paired set of features (nose, chin, forehead, eyes (including eyelids), ears (auricles), cheeks, lips); or two or three of the characteristics of disfigurement. A 50 percent disability rating is warranted with visible or palpable tissue loss and either gross distortion or asymmetry of two features or paired sets of features (nose, chin, forehead, eyes (including eyelids), ears (auricles), cheeks, lips); or four or five characteristics of disfigurement. An 80 percent disability rating is warranted with visible or palpable tissue loss and either gross distortion or asymmetry of three or more features or paired sets of features (nose, chin, forehead, eyes (including eyelids), ears (auricles), cheeks, lips); or six or more characteristics of disfigurement. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. The eight characteristics of disfigurement for the purposes of rating under 38 C.F.R. § 4.118 are: scar of 5 in. or more (13 or more centimeters (cm.)) in length; scar at least 1/4 in. (0.6 cm.) wide at its widest part; surface contour of scar elevated or depressed on palpation; scar adherent to underlying tissue; skin hypo- or hyper-pigmented in an area exceeding 6 sq. in. (39 sq. cm.); skin texture abnormal (irregular, atrophic, shiny, scaly, etc.) in an area exceeding 6 sq. in. (39 sq. cm.); underlying soft tissue missing in an area exceeding 6 sq. in. (39 sq. cm.); and skin indurated and inflexible in an area exceeding 6 sq. in. (39 sq. cm.). Id., Note (1). The pre-amended Diagnostic Code 7801 provided disability ratings for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are deep and nonlinear. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7801 (2017). In contrast, the amended Diagnostic Code 7801 contemplates burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are associated with underlying soft tissue damage. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7801 (August 13, 2018). Both the old and new criteria provide that a 10 percent rating is awarded when the area of the scar(s) covers at least 6 square inches (39 square centimeters) but less than 12 square inches (77 square centimeters). A 20 percent rating is warranted when the area of the scar(s) covers at least 12 square inches (77 square centimeters) but less than 72 square inches (456 square centimeters). A 30 percent rating is warranted when the area of the scar(s) covers at least 72 square inches (456 square centimeters) but less than 144 square inches (929 square centimeters). A 40 percent rating is assigned when the area of the scar(s) covers at least 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) or greater. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic 7801. Note (1) to the pre-amended Diagnostic Code 7801 stated that a deep scar is one associated with underlying soft tissue damage. Prior to August 13, 2018, Diagnostic Code 7802 provided rating criteria for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are superficial and nonlinear. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic 7802 (2017). The amended version is for burn scar(s) or scar(s) due to other causes, not of the head, face, or neck, that are not associated with underlying soft tissue damage. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7802 (August 13, 2018). Both versions state that a 10 percent disability rating is warranted when the area of the scar covers 144 square inches (929 square centimeters) or greater. Under both the old and new rating criteria, Diagnostic Code 7804 provides disability ratings for scars that are unstable or painful. A 10 percent rating is warranted for one or two scars that are unstable or painful. A 20 percent rating is warranted for three or four scars that are unstable or painful. A 30 percent rating is warranted for five or more scars that are unstable or painful. Note (1) states that an unstable scar is one where, for any reason, there is frequent loss of covering of skin over the scar. Note (2) provides that if one or more scars are both unstable and painful, an additional 10 percent should be added to the evaluation based on the total number of unstable or painful scars. Note (3) states that scars evaluated under diagnostic codes 7800, 7801, 7802, or 7805 may also receive an evaluation under this diagnostic code, when applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic 7804. In every instance where the schedule does not provide a 0 percent rating for a diagnostic code, a 0 percent rating will be assigned when the requirements for a compensable rating are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. Turning to the evidence of record, apart from an April 2015 report of mild pain when lifting heavy objects from time to time, the Veteran's treatment records are silent for complaints or treatment of his right hernia scar. In an October 2016 VA examination, the Veteran was found to have a linear hernia scar that was not unstable or painful. In November 2020 VA examinations, the Veteran was found to have a painful right inguinal canal scar. The examiner noted that the Veteran had developed a bulging of the right inguinal canal with increased pain with lifting, bending, pushing or pulling. The scar was painful and tight on examination and the discomfort was worse with bending at the waist or lifting from the floor to the waist. Based on the forgoing, for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020, the finds that the evidence of record, to include the April 2015 lay assertion and the October 2016 VA examination finding, is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran had a painful right hernia scar. Resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran had a painful scar. Accordingly, a disability rating of 10 percent, and no higher, is warranted under Diagnostic Code 7804. Regarding the entire period on appeal, as noted above, there is no indication that the Veteran has two or more or unstable or painful scars. See November 2020 VA Examination. Accordingly, a higher disability rating under Diagnostic Code 7804 is not warranted at time during the appeal period. The Board has also considered whether the Veteran is entitlement to a separate or higher disability rating under other applicable Diagnostic Codes. Here, the Veteran's scar is not a burn scar, is not at least 39 square cm, non-linear, does not manifest on the head, face, or neck, and the disabling effects (pain) is considered under Diagnostic Code 7804. Accordingly, the Board finds that Diagnostic Codes 7800, 7801, 7802, and 7805 are not applicable in this case. In reaching the above determinations, the Board has considered the Veteran's competent lay assertions, to include his reports of pain with lifting. The Veteran is certainly competent to describe his observations and the Board finds that his statements are credible. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469-70 (1994) (noting that personal knowledge is "that which comes to the witness through the use of his senses-that which is heard, felt, seen, smelled, or tasted"). However, the Board finds that the objective medical findings by skilled professionals, which incorporate the Veteran's competent assertions, provide the most persuasive evidence regarding the limitations posed by the Veteran's scar. Based on the foregoing, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and entitlement to an initial disability for the period on appeal prior to November 18, 2020 of 10 percent, and no higher, is warranted and the claim for a higher rating is granted. A disability rating in excess of 10 percent for the period on appeal beginning November 18, 2020 is not warranted and the claim is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to a TDIU due to service-connected disabilities is remanded. The Veteran is seeking a TDIU. Specifically, the he contends that he is unable to obtain and maintain gainful employment due to his service-connected disabilities. Review of the record reveals that in September 2018, the Veteran's employer was awaiting a release from a doctor in order for the Veteran to return to work as a mechanic. The record also shows that the Veteran was receiving vocational counselling in August 2019, which was suspended in September 2020 due to personal reasons. Here, the Veteran's educational history and his employment history during the period on appeal are unclear from the evidence of record. Accordingly, a remand is warranted for additional development and for the AOJ to request additional information from the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The AOJ should obtain all outstanding VA treatment records and any private treatment records identified by the Veteran. In doing so, the AOJ should notify the Veteran as to how to substantiate a claim for entitlement to TDIU. The Veteran should be requested to complete and return VA Form 21-8940 (Veteran's Application for Increased Compensation Based on Unemployability) and VA Form 21-4192 (Request for Employment Information in Connection with Claim for Disability Benefits). Each executed form should be returned to VA. 2. After completing the requested actions, and any additional notification and/or development deemed warranted, readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish to the Veteran and his representative an appropriate supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) that includes clear reasons and bases for all determinations, and afford them the appropriate time period for response before the claims file is returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Kaufer, 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.