Citation Nr: 21042487 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 14-10 873 DATE: July 13, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to a rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for right knee patellofemoral syndrome is granted. Entitlement to a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to April 15, 2021, and in excess of 10 percent thereafter is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran's right knee disability shows no evidence of flexion limited to 45 degrees, extension of at least 10 degrees, locking, effusion, tibia or fibula impairment, genu recurvatum, ankylosis/its functional equivalent; functional loss was limited to painful motion. 2. For the period on appeal prior to April 15, 2021 the Veteran's allergic rhinitis did not result in greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. 3. At no time during the appeal period did the Veteran's allergic rhinitis result in nasal polyps. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a 10 percent rating for right knee patellofemoral syndrome have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5260. 2. For the initial rating period on appeal prior to April 15, 2021, the criteria for a compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.21, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. 3. Beginning April 15, 2021, the criteria for a disability rating in excess of 10 percent for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.21, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Navy from June 1996 to June 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2011 rating decision. At the Veteran's request, the Board scheduled a July 2017 videoconference hearing. The appellant failed to attend his scheduled Board hearing or request a postponement. Therefore, his request for a Board hearing is considered withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R.§ 20.704 (d). In August 2018, the Board remanded the claims for further development, to include obtaining medical opinions as to the severity of the Veteran's service-connected right knee patellofemoral syndrome and allergic rhinitis. The Veteran was afforded adequate VA examinations for both disabilities in June 2019. Thus, the Board determines that there has been substantial compliance with the August 2018 remand directives, and further remand is not required. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). In May 2021, the RO increased the noncompensable rating assigned to the Veteran's service-connected allergic rhinitis to 10 percent, effective April 15, 2021. However, the issue remains on appeal as it does not represent a full grant of the benefit sought. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). Increased Rating The Veteran's entire history is reviewed when making disability evaluations. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1995). At the time of an initial rating, consideration of the appropriateness of a staged rating is also required. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Disability evaluations are determined by comparing a Veteran's symptoms with criteria set forth in VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, which are based on average impairment in earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. Part 4. When a question arises as to which of two ratings applies under a particular DC, the higher of the two evaluations is assigned if the disability more closely approximates the criteria for the higher rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. Pyramiding, that is the evaluation of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different DCs, is to be avoided when evaluating a Veteran's service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (2017); see Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Musculoskeletal Disabilities When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities, VA must consider whether a higher evaluation is warranted, where the claimant experiences additional functional loss due to pain, weakness, excess fatigability, or incoordination, to include with repeated use or during flare-ups. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45; DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202, 204-7 (1995). The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 and 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 are to be considered in conjunction with the DCs predicated on limitation of motion. See Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 7 (1996). Painful motion is an important factor of disability, and it is the intention to recognize actually painful, unstable, or malaligned joints, due to healed injury, as entitled to at least the minimum compensable rating for the joint. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.59; Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011). Nevertheless, pain itself does not rise to the level of functional loss as contemplated by the VA regulations applicable to the musculoskeletal system. Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32 (2011). Moreover, functional impairment must be supported by adequate pathology. Id.; Johnson v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 7, 10 (1996) (both citing to 38 C.F.R. § 4.40). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial rating assigned, evaluation of the evidence since the effective date of the grant of service connection is required. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). Where VA's adjudication of the claim for increase is lengthy and factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms which would warrant different ratings, different or "staged" ratings may be assigned for such different periods of time. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509- 10 (2007); Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126-27. 1. Entitlement to a compensable rating for right knee patellofemoral syndrome The Veteran contends that he is entitled to higher ratings for his service-connected right knee disability. The Veteran is currently in receipt of a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5260 for limitation of flexion of the leg The Veteran is currently in receipt of a noncompensable rating under Diagnostic Code 5260 for limitation of flexion of the leg. Under this Diagnostic Code, a noncompensable rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 60 degrees. A 10 percent rating is warranted when flexion of the leg is limited to 45 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 30 degrees. A 30 percent rating is warranted when flexion is limited to 15 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Normal flexion is 140 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. The Board will also consider Code 5261 for limitation of extension of the leg. Under this Code, a noncompensable rating is warranted when extension is limited to 5 degrees. A 10 percent rating is warranted when extension of the leg is limited to 10 degrees. A 20 percent rating is warranted when extension is limited to 15 degrees. A 30 percent rating is warranted when extension is limited to 20 degrees. A 40 percent rating is warranted when extension is limited to 30 degrees. A 50 percent rating is warranted when extension is limited to 50 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Normal extension is 0 degrees. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71, Plate II. Diagnostic Codes 5260 and 5261 both govern limitation of motion. They provide criteria for limitation of flexion and extension of the leg. When a rating of a disability is based upon limitation of motion, the Board must also consider, in conjunction with the otherwise applicable Code, any additional functional loss the Veteran may have sustained by virtue of other factors. Those factors include more or less movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, pain on movement, swelling, and deformity or atrophy from disuse. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45 (2020); DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995). A finding of functional loss due to pain must be supported by adequate pathology and evidenced by the visible behavior of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.40. The Board notes that the criteria for rating musculoskeletal disabilities, including disabilities of the knee, have changed once during the period covered by this appeal, effective February 7, 2021. See 85 Fed. Reg. 76453 (Nov. 30, 2020). When a law or regulation changes during the pendency of a Veteran's appeal, the version most favorable to the Veteran applies, absent congressional intent to the contrary. The amended rating criteria, if favorable to the claim, can be applied only for periods from the effective date of the regulatory change; however, the old regulations will be considered for the periods both before and after the change was made. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114; VAOPGCPREC 3-2000, 65 Fed. Reg. 33422 (2000); Kuzma v. Principi, 341 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Thus, the Veteran is entitled to application of the criteria that are most favorable to his claim, except that an award based on the amended regulations may not be made effective before the effective date of the change. Specifically, with respect to the knee, the Board notes that changes have been made to DC 5010 for traumatic arthritis, DC 5257 for knee instability, and DC 5262 for impairment of the tibia and fibula. DC 5010 for traumatic arthritis instructs the rater to assign ratings according to DC 5003, the DC for degenerative arthritis. DC 5003 provides that degenerative arthritis substantiated by x-ray findings is rated on the basis of limitation of motion under the appropriate DCs for the specific joint or joints involved. When limitation of motion is noncompensable under the appropriate DCs, a rating of 10 percent is for application for each major joint or group of minor joints affected by limitation of motion. A 20 percent evaluation is warranted for x-ray evidence of involvement of 2 or more major or minor joints, with occasional incapacitating exacerbations. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5003. Under DC 5258, a 20 percent rating is warranted for dislocated semilunar Cartilage, with frequent episodes of "locking," pain, and effusion into the joint. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5258. Under DC 5259, a 10 percent rating can be assigned for symptomatic removal of semilunar cartilage. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a. Under DC 5258, a 20 percent evaluation can be assigned for cartilage, semilunar, dislocated, with frequent episodes of "locking," pain, and effusion into the joint. Id. Under DC 5257, governing recurrent subluxation and lateral instability, a 10 percent rating is assigned for mild impairment, a 20 percent rating is assigned for moderate impairment and a 30 percent rating is assigned for severe impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5257. Additionally, the Board notes that DC 5257 was amended effective February 7, 2021. As of this date, with respect to recurrent subluxation or lateral instability, a 10 percent rating is assigned for recurrent subluxation or instability with sprain, incomplete ligament tear, or complete ligament tear (repaired, unrepaired, or failed repair) causing persistent instability, without a prescription from a medical provider for an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) or bracing for ambulation. A 20 percent rating is assigned for recurrent subluxation or instability with one of the following: (a) Sprain, incomplete ligament tear, or repaired complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes a brace and/or assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) for ambulation. (b) Unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes either an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) or bracing for ambulation. A 30 percent rating is assigned for recurrent subluxation or instability: unrepaired or failed repair of complete ligament tear causing persistent instability, and a medical provider prescribes both an assistive device (e.g., cane(s), crutch(es), walker) and bracing for ambulation. For patellar instability, a 10 percent is assigned for a diagnosed condition involving the patellofemoral complex with recurrent instability (with or without history of surgical repair) that does not require a prescription from a medical provider for a brace, cane, or walker. A 20 percent rating is assigned for a diagnosed condition involving the patellofemoral complex with recurrent instability after surgical repair that requires a prescription by a medical provider for one of the following: a brace, cane, or walker. A 30 percent rating is assigned for a diagnosed condition involving the patellofemoral complex with recurrent instability after surgical repair that requires a prescription by a medical provider for a brace and either a cane or a walker. Note (1): For patellar instability, the patellofemoral complex consists of the quadriceps tendon, the patella, and the patellar tendon. Note (2): A surgical procedure that does not involve repair of one or more patellofemoral components that contribute to the underlying instability shall not qualify as surgical repair for patellar instability (including, but not limited to, arthroscopy to remove loose bodies and joint aspiration). See Schedule for Rating Disabilities: Musculoskeletal System and Muscle Injuries, 85 Fed. Reg. 76453, 76463 (Nov. 30, 2020) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5257). Under DC 5262 governing impairment of the tibia and fibula, malunion of the tibia and fibula with slight knee or ankle disability warrants a 10 percent rating. Malunion of the tibia and fibula with moderate knee or ankle disability warrants a 20 percent rating. Malunion of the tibia and fibula with marked knee or ankle disability warrants a 30 percent rating. Nonunion of the tibia and fibula with loose motion requiring a brace warrants a 40 percent rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5262. Additionally, effective February 7, 2021, the ratings under DC 5262 were amended. DC 5262 now provides new ratings for medial tibial stress syndrome (MTSS), or shin splints. Specifically, a 10 percent rating is warranted for MTSS or shin splints requiring treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment, one or both lower extremities. A 20 percent rating is warranted for MTSS or shin splints requiring treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to surgery and either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment, one lower extremity. A 30 percent rating is warranted for MTSS or shin splints requiring treatment for no less than 12 consecutive months, and unresponsive to surgery and either shoe orthotics or other conservative treatment, both lower extremities. In addition, under DC 5262, a 40 percent is warranted for nonunion of the tibula or fibula with loose motion, requiring brace. With respect to malunion of the tibula or fibula, DC 5262 states that it is to be rated under DCs 5256, 5257, 5260, or 5261 for the knee, or 5270 or 5271 for the ankle, whichever results in the highest evaluation. 85 Fed. Reg. 76453, 76463 (Nov. 30, 2020) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5262). Separate ratings for knee disabilities may be assigned for disability of the same joint if none of the symptomatology on which each rating is based is duplicative or overlapping. See VAOPGCPREC 9-04 (2004); 69 Fed. Reg. 59,990 (2004); 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. Turning to the relevant evidence pertaining to the Veteran's right knee, during a February 2011 General Medical Examination, the Veteran reported that he had been experiencing recurrent right knee pain with activities such as running or jumping since 2002. The Veteran stated that his knee pain resolved with Motrin and time. He had no swelling, redness, drainage, instability, or locking. He reported that he was able to run for 1.5 miles and stand for a couple of hours without difficulty. The Veteran also stated that his knee symptoms occur with activities described without acute flare-ups. The examiner noted a diagnosis of right knee patellofemoral syndrome with unremarkable radiograph and no significant functional limitation. Range of motion testing revealed 0-140 degrees with crepitus and no pain. There was no evidence of increased pain, weakness, fatigability, lack of endurance, or additional limitation of function with repetitive range of motion. In a July 2012 NOD, the Veteran stated that he has experienced frequent pain in his right knee since 2002. The Veteran further noted that he believed that the examiner did not find specific findings such as redness, warmth, swelling, or tenderness because he was not involved in any activities during his examination. The Veteran also explained that he has to be careful in all of his activities, such as running and jumping, because he does not want to have painful experiences. In an August 2018 Informal Hearing Presentation, the Veteran contended that he is entitled to an increased evaluation as he believed that his symptoms worsened since his last rating examination. The Veteran also reported that he previously downplayed some of the symptoms he experienced and the frequency and severity of his right knee condition. During the August 2019 Knee and Lower Leg Conditions DBQ, the examiner noted a diagnosis of right knee patellofemoral syndrome. The Veteran did not report flare-ups or functional loss/impairment of the right knee. Bilateral knee range of motion revealed 140 degrees of flexion without any pain. There was no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation, bilaterally. There was no additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions in either knee. Regarding repeated use over time, there were no changes with either knee. Muscle strength testing was normal in both knees 5/5. There was no muscle atrophy, instability, or ankylosis in either knee. No assistive devices were needed. There was no evidence of pain on passive range of motion and non-weight bearing testing in either knee. Imaging studies were not performed. The examiner also stated that the Veteran's condition did not impact his ability to perform any occupational tasks. During a September 2020 Knee and Lower Leg Conditions DBQ, to assess a separate claim, the examiner failed to note that the Veteran had a knee disorder. Bilateral knee range of motion revealed 140 degrees of flexion and extension to 0 degrees, without any pain. There was no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation, bilaterally. There was no additional loss of function or range of motion after three repetitions in either knee. Regarding repeated use over time, there were no changes with either knee. Muscle strength testing was normal in both knees 5/5. There was no muscle atrophy, instability, or ankylosis in either knee. No assistive devices were needed. There was no evidence of pain on passive range of motion and non-weight bearing testing in either knee. Imaging studies were not performed. The examiner also stated that the Veteran's condition did not impact his ability to perform any occupational tasks. Again, the Veteran is currently in receipt of a noncompensable rating for his right knee patellofemoral syndrome. Based on the evidence above, the Board finds that for the entire appeal period, a 10 percent rating is warranted for the Veteran's right knee patellofemoral syndrome based on painful motion under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 (allows for painful motion that is noncompensable under the limitation of motion provisions governing the knee joint to be rated at the lowest compensable rating for limitation of motion). See Burton, supra. A rating in excess of 10 percent, however, is not warranted. More specifically, a higher rating is not warranted under DC 5010 as there is no evidence that the Veteran experienced occasional incapacitating exacerbations. A higher rating is also not warranted under DCs 5260 or 5261, as right knee flexion was not limited to 45 degrees or less and right knee extension was not limited to 10 degrees or more. During the appeal period, upon all examinations, right leg flexion was limited to 140 degrees, and the Veteran exhibited full extension. As the evidence does not show impairment of the tibia or fibula, genu recurvatum, or ankylosis of the right knee, DCs 5256, 5262, and 5263 are not applicable. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5256, 5262, 5263. A higher or separate rating under DC 5258 is not warranted as no locking and no recurrent effusion was demonstrated in the record during this period. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5258. Nor is a higher or separate rating available under DC 5259. Under DC 5259, the highest available rating is a 10 percent disability rating, and the evidence does not show that the Veteran underwent a right knee meniscectomy or experienced symptoms not compensated in the assigned 10 percent rating. Lastly, while the Veteran has reported right knee pain, the Veteran did not report additional functional loss due to his right knee. Additionally, the examinations and treatment records do not reflect any additional functional loss (beyond the pain that the Veteran has conveyed), which is contemplated in the assigned 10 percent rating for this period. Thus, additional compensation for functional loss is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.40, 4.45. Given the above, the Board finds that a 10 percent rating based on right knee pain (but no higher) is warranted under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, for functional loss due to painful motion. 2. Entitlement to a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to April 15, 2021 and in excess of 10 percent thereafter The Veteran's allergic rhinitis is currently assigned an initial noncompensable rating prior to April 15, 2021, and a 10 percent rating thereafter, pursuant to Diagnostic Code 6522. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, DC 6522. On appeal, the Veteran seeks a higher rating. Under DC 6522, a 10 percent rating is assigned 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 30 percent rating is assigned for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis with polyps. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97. Turning to the evidence, a February 2011 General Medical Examination showed that the Veteran was diagnosed with allergic rhinitis with bilateral nasal vestibule obstruction with no significant functional limitation. The Veteran reported that he experienced nasal and sinus congestion, nasal drainage, sneezing, itchy and watery eyes. Turbinates were swollen and boggy with 25 to 30 percent bilaterally nasal vestibule obstruction. There was no purulent drainage, and the Veteran's oropharynx was otherwise within normal limits. The Veteran further noted that he had no difficulty breathing through his nostrils or speech impairment and no history of sinus infections requiring treatment. There were also no functional limitations with daily or occupational activities. In a July 2011 NOD, the Veteran stated that following discharge, he did not have medical coverage and reported that his symptoms (to include nasal and sinus congestion, nasal drainage, repetitive sneezing, difficulty breathing, headaches, and itchy nose and eyes). The Veteran reported that he crossed the border in Mexico, in January 2011, for a doctor's consultation and a tomography was taken. The Veteran reported that the findings revealed a nasal septum deviation and that his symptoms included nasal congestion, facial pain, and bad headaches. A November 2011 VA treatment record reveals that the Veteran was prescribed nasal spray for his rhinitis. In a June 2013 Headaches DBQ, the Veteran reported that he has a deviated nasal symptom and diagnosed with allergic rhinitis. The Veteran stated that he uses daily over-the-counter Claritin and a prescribed nasal steroid mometasone. The examiner stated that the Veteran had significant allergic rhinitis requiring daily nasal steroids and antihistamines. A July 2013 VA treatment record reveals that the Veteran presented with complaints of allergies and a deviated septum causing left nasal obstruction. The degree of the obstruction was not identified. In an August 2018 Informal Hearing Presentation, the Veteran contended that he is entitled to an increased evaluation as he believed that his symptoms worsened. In a June 2019 Sinusitis/Rhinitis and Other Conditions of the Nose, Throat, Larynx and Pharynx DBQ, the examiner noted a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. When describing the history of his condition, the Veteran noted that it was "all of a sudden," noting that he takes Claritin for relief. The examiner noted that there was not greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis. There was not complete obstruction on the left or right side due to rhinitis. There was not a permanent history of the nasal turbinates. There were no nasal polyps. The Veteran did not have a granulomatous condition. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms. The Veteran did not have loss of part of the nose or other scars of the nose exposing both nasal passages, causing loss of part of one ala, or causing any other disfigurement. Imaging studies, a biopsy, an endoscopy, and pulmonary function testing had not been performed. The examiner noted that the Veteran's condition did not impact his ability to work. In a June 2020 statement, the Veteran reported that he did not believe that his condition had improved. In support of this statement, the Veteran noted that his prescribed medication was not helping his condition and that he had to purchase an expensive medication in Mexico for relief. The Veteran also reported that he did not believe that the VA examiner performed a proper examination, citing that the examiner solely asked how his allergies were and did not perform a physical examination or look inside of his nose. The Veteran additionally stated that his right nostril was obstructed, and the left nostril was partially obstructed, which caused breathing difficulties. The Veteran also stated that he often has a runny, stuffy, itchy nose; migraines; and fatigue. In a May 2021 Sinusitis/Rhinitis and Other Conditions of the Nose, Throat, Larynx and Pharynx DBQ, the examiner noted a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis with bilateral nasal vestibule. The Veteran reported that around 2009, he started to develop itchy nose and eyes, a runny nose, and sneezing bouts. The Veteran also reported that he had watery eyes, drainage, and nasal congestion through the nose. He stated that his symptoms persisted over the years and that he was currently taking Loratidine and Fluticasone. He stated that his condition prevents him from getting restful sleep because of his stuffy nose and because he has difficulty breathing. Upon examination, the examiner reported that the Veteran had greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis, but there was not complete obstruction on the left or right side. There was also no permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates. There were no nasal polyps. The Veteran did not have a granulomatous condition. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, or symptoms. The Veteran did not have loss of part of the nose or other scars of the nose exposing both nasal passages, causing loss of part of one ala, or causing any other disfigurement. Imaging studies, a biopsy, an endoscopy, and pulmonary function testing had not been performed. The Veteran's condition impacted his ability to work in that when his allergies flare up with a runny nose, watery eyes, and sneezing bouts, he has difficulty concentrating at work. Based on the evidence of record, the Board finds that an initial compensable rating is not warranted prior to April 15, 2021. During this period, the Veteran's rhinitis was primarily manifested by nasal secretions and without nasal polyps. The criteria for a compensable rating is also not warranted because the objective medical evidence, to include the VA examination reports and diagnostic testing, do not show that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis resulted in greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passages on both sides or complete obstruction of one nasal passage during the applicable period. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's reports that he experienced nasal obstruction, but the Veteran is not competent to determine the degree in which his nose was obstructed. In other words, during this period, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis is not shown to exhibit any compensable manifestations. And, as such, the Board concludes that an initial compensable rating is not warranted under DC 6522 for the appeal period prior to April 15, 2021. As noted above, the RO then assigned a 10 percent rating for the Veteran's allergic rhinitis from April 15, 2021, based on evidence of greater than 50 percent obstruction of both nasal passages. The next-higher rating of 30 percent under DC 6522 requires evidence of nasal polyps, which have not been demonstrated at any time during the entire appeal period, to include from April 2021 forward. None of the VA examinations or treatment records indicate the presence of any nasal polyps at any time during the appeal period and the Veteran does not assert otherwise. Accordingly, a rating higher than 10 percent is not warranted for allergic rhinitis from April 15, 2021. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's statement that his rhinitis is more severe than evaluated. Here, the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms and has presented credible statements in this regard. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). The Board finds, however, that neither the Veteran's statements nor medical evidence demonstrates that the criteria for a compensable disability evaluation have been met. In determining the actual degree of disability, the examination findings are more probative of the degree of impairment. The Board has also considered the Veteran's contention that the June 2019 VA examination was inadequate, because the examiner did not thoroughly examine his nose. However, there is no indication, other than the Veteran's assertion, that the VA examiner did not perform a full examination to address the severity of the Veteran's service-connected allergic rhinitis. In this regard, the June 2019 examination report shows that the examiner performed a physical examination, discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided an adequate supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. See June 2019 VA examination. Thus, as the record does not reflect that the VA examination was inadequate, the Board finds this argument unpersuasive. The Board additionally notes that no other diagnostic code is for consideration as the Veteran does not have bacterial rhinitis or Granulomatous rhinitis. See Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 595 (1991). For these reasons, the Board finds that a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis prior to April 15, 2021, and for a rating in excess of 10 percent thereafter. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. GAYLE STROMMEN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Hanson 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.