Citation Nr: A25035782 Decision Date: 04/17/25 Archive Date: 04/17/25 DOCKET NO. 240902-470499 DATE: April 17, 2025 ORDER The appeal of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is dismissed. Service connection for chronic sinusitis is denied. A compensable initial rating for allergic rhinitis is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The September 2, 2024, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (NOD/Board Appeal), is not a timely NOD as to any decision issued under the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), in the one year prior to September 2024 or as to the most recent January 2016 legacy rating decision addressing the claim of service connection for sleep apnea; and there is no applicable exception to the filing of a timely NOD. 2. The Veteran is not shown to have (or at any time during the pendency of his claim to have had) chronic sinusitis. 3. Throughout he appeal period, the evidence persuasively shows that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis is manifested by no polyps, less than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides, and less than complete obstruction on one side. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal of the claim of service connection for sleep apnea addressed in the January 2016 legacy rating decision have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.20, 19.21, 20.202. 2. The criteria for service connection for chronic sinusitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 3. The criteria for an initial compensable rating for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code (Code) 6522. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1986 to March 1996 and from November 2003 to December 2004, to include service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. The Board thanks the Veteran for his service to our country. The rating decision on appeal as to the claims of service connection for chronic sinusitis and a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis was issued in October 2023 (an October 2023 letter notified the Veteran of the rating decision) and constitutes an initial decision; therefore, the AMA applies. The Veteran has also attempted to appeal the January 2016 legacy rating decision which determined that new and material evidence had not been received reopen the previously denied claim of service connection for sleep apnea. In the September 2024 NOD, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2023 notice of the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal as to the matters of service connection for sinusitis and a compensable initial rating for allergic rhinitis. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 1. The appeal of entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is dismissed. The Veteran seeks to appeal the denial of service connection for sleep apnea addressed in a January 6, 2016, rating decision. The Veteran has not provided any arguments in support of this matter. The Board finds that, due to claims processing defects, the appeal as to this claim must be dismissed. Since February 19, 2019, there have been two types of appeals processing systems for claims within VA. Specifically, claims that are subject to the legacy appeals processing system and claims subject to the modernized appeals review system (AMA). These systems do not operate concurrently. In cases in which the AOJ issues an initial decision that led to an administrative appeal before February 19, 2019, the legacy appeals processing system applies, while those initial decisions issued on or after that date are subject to the AMA appeals process. However, there are two exceptions where a legacy-appeal-claimant can access the AMA process, (1) by opting-in under the Rapid Appeals Modernization Program (RAMP) or (2) by electing to proceed under the AMA after the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC) or Supplemental SOC (SSOC) under the legacy review system. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400, 19.2. Generally, 38 U.S.C. § 7105, and 38 C.F.R. Part 19, govern appeals of adverse decisions issued before the effective date of the AMA. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.1. Such appeals are called legacy appeals. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(b). A legacy appeal consists of a timely filed NOD and, after an SOC has been furnished, a timely filed substantive appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 19.20. An NOD is the first step toward initiating review in the VA administrative adjudication process. Mason v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 44, 54 (1995) (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7105); Holland v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 433, 436 (1997) (per curiam order). An NOD is a written communication filed with the AOJ that, among other things, expresses dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination. 38 C.F.R. § 19.20. An NOD may be filed by the claimant, his fiduciary, or such accredited representative, attorney, or authorized agent as a claimant may select. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 19.50(a). The time limit for the filing of an NOD is governed by 38 C.F.R. § 19.52(a), which provides that a claimant, or his or her representative, must file an NOD with a determination by the AOJ "within one year from the date that [] agency mails notice of the determination to him or her[,] [o]therwise that determination will become final." See also 38 U.S.C. § 7105. Regulations in effect between January 6, 2016, and February 18, 2019, reflect that appeals were initiated by filing an NOD on a standard form provided by VA. 38 C.F.R. § 20.201(a)(1) (2015) (redesignated 38 C.F.R. § 19.21, effective Feb. 19, 2019). However, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that VA regulations requiring the use of a specific appeal form do not limit the Board's jurisdiction. Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329, 333 (2021). Rather, "VA's regulations [such as § 19.21] are akin to claim-processing rules insofar as they govern the processing of cases but do not implicate the agency's jurisdiction." Id. No statutory provisions suggest that Congress intended to limit the Board's jurisdiction whenever a claimant uses the wrong form to file an NOD. Id. Under the AMA, a veteran must file an NOD (VA Form 10182 Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement)) with the Board within one year of the notification letter provided with the adverse rating decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203(b). The NOD must identify the specific decision and issue or issues therein with which the Veteran disagrees. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(a). Lastly, an exception exists if a claimant establishes "an adequate excuse" for the untimeliness of an NOD, such as an extension request with good cause, waiver, forfeiture, or any other relevant factor. Ferko v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 262, 269 (2024); Hall, 34 Vet. App. at 333-34. In the present appeal, review of the record shows a January 6, 2016, rating decision denied service connection for sleep apnea. A subsequent January 2016 VA letter notified the Veteran of this decision and how to appeal. However, VA received no NOD or new and material evidence prior to expiration of the appeal period. Therefore, the July 2014 rating decision became final. Next, in May 2019, VA received the Veteran's VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, which lists a claim for service connection for sleep apnea. A subsequent May 2019 VA letter notified the Veteran of what he should do to obtain review of the previously denied decision for sleep apnea. This letter set out the circumstances that permit Board review as well as review by the AOJ - to include that VA regulations required him to submit his request on the proper form. This letter identified the correct forms for review depending on the review option sought and the date of the decision which he sought to have reviewed under the AMA. In August 2019, VA received another VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, which lists a claim for service connection for sleep apnea and a subsequent August 2019 VA letter notified the Veteran of what he should do to obtain review of the claim for sleep apnea that was previously denied, including the proper forms to permit Board and AOJ review. In July 2023, VA received another VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, which shows he claimed service connection for disabilities caused by exposure to burn pits in Saudi Arabia. A subsequent July 2023 VA Form 27-0820, Report of General Information, shows the Veteran stated the conditions he suffers from due to his exposure to burn pits include sleep apnea. An October 2023 VA letter again notified the Veteran of what he should do to obtain review of the previously denied claim for sleep apnea, including the proper forms to permit Board and AOJ review. The record does not show the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, for review of a decision denying service connection for sleep apnea of which he was notified prior to February 19, 2019. Rather, in September 2024, over 8 years after the January 2016 rating decision, VA received the Veteran's NOD (VA Form 10182) listing the claim of service connection for sleep apnea and identifying the January 2016 rating decision as to this claim which he wished to appeal to the Board. However, because the September 2024, NOD (VA Form 10182) was received more than one year after the January 2016 rating decision which most recently addressed this claim, the Board finds that the September 2024, NOD (VA Form 10182) is a not a timely request for review of the January 2016 rating decision. Although VA Form 10182 is the form required to obtain Board review of an AMA decision (or valid opt in), it is not the correct form to initiate an appeal to the Board of a legacy decision. This is a claims processing defect and dismissal is appropriate. See generally, Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329 (2021). It is noted that the January 2016 rating decision was issued under the legacy review system and prior to the enactment of the AMA system on February 19, 2019. As such, the Veteran's September 2024 NOD (VA Form 10182) may not be accepted as an NOD as to the January 2016 rating decision because it was not received within one year of the issuance of an AMA decision. In addition, the Veteran's September 2024 NOD (VA Form 10182) may not be accepted as an attempt to file a legacy appeal of the January 2016 rating decision because it was received more than one year after the issuance of the January 2016 rating decision and, as such, it constitutes an untimely communication to initiate an appeal under the legacy appeal processing system. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.52(a), 20.110 (a claimant has one year from date of notification letter to file an NOD). Indeed, the record contains no communications, formal or informal, from the Veteran, dated within one year of the January 2016 rating decision, that could reasonably be construed as a legacy NOD. See 38 C.F.R. § 19.20; Gallegos v. Gober, 283 F.3d 1309 (Fed. Cir. 2002). The Veteran has not argued otherwise and this appears uncontroverted. Next, the Board finds that, although there is a good cause exception to the filing of a timely NOD, the Veteran has not requested an extension of time nor proffered any reason as to why there was not a timely NOD of the January 2016 rating decision. VA regulation permits the extension of the time for doing any act required "to perfect a claim or challenge an adverse VA decision" if an extension is "requested" and "good cause" is shown. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.109(b); see also Rowell v. Principi, 4 Vet. App. 9, 15 (1993). However, there is no legal entitlement to an extension; rather the regulation commits the decision to the sole discretion of the Secretary. Corry v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 231, 235 (1992). "Where an extension is requested after expiration of a time limit, the action required of the claimant or beneficiary must be taken concurrent with or prior to the filing of a request for extension of the time limit, and good cause must be shown as to why the required action could not have been taken during the original time period and could not have been taken sooner than it was." 38 C.F.R. § 3.109(b). There is no other VA regulation that allows an extension of time for filing an NOD. See Rowell, 4 Vet. App. at 15. Here, again, the Veteran has neither submitted a request for an extension of the filing time nor has he provided an explanation as to why the NOD was untimely. Therefore, the Board finds no basis upon which to allow an extension of time for filing an NOD as to the January 2016 rating decision that continued the denial of his claim of service connection for sleep apnea. Additionally, the Board finds the mandatory claims processing rule for a timely NOD has not been waived or forfeited. To the extent the Board sent a September 12, 2024, letter notifying the Veteran that the Board had "received your Board Appeal request (VA Form 10182) [and] your appeal has been placed on the Direct Review docket," this is a ministerial letter and does not constitute waiver of enforcement of the mandatory claims processing rule as it contains neither discussion of the facts nor applicable VA law and regulations concerning timeliness of the Veteran's NOD. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1)(C) ("[a] question as to timeliness of the notice of disagreement shall by decided by the Board). Further, as this is the first opportunity that a Veterans Law Judge has had to review the Veteran's September 2024 NOD (VA Form 10182), the Board could not have taken any action reasonably construed by the Veteran as the Board's forfeiting enforcement of the claims processing rule. Lastly, the Board finds that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) are not applicable. The regulation provides that notice and the opportunity to present evidence and argument, including the opportunity for a hearing, must be provided to all parties when the Board raises a question as to a "potential" jurisdictional defect. However, § 20.104(c) pertains to "jurisdictional authority" and not to "claims processing rules" defects. Nevertheless, even if 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c) was to apply, there is no question as to a "potential" jurisdictional defect, rather an actual and evident defect on the face of the record. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991) (strict adherence to requirements of law is not warranted when adherence would result in unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on VA with no benefit flowing to the veteran). In sum, the September 2024 NOD (VA Form10182) is not a timely NOD as to the most recent legacy decision of January 2016 addressing the claim of service connection for sleep apnea; and there is no applicable exception to the filing of a timely NOD. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1)(A); Ferko, 37 Vet. App. at 269; Hall, 34 Vet. App. at 333-34. Accordingly, as proper claims processing rules have not been followed, the claim of service connection for sleep apnea addressed in a January 2016 rating decision is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to service connection for chronic sinusitis is denied. The Veteran contends that he developed sinusitis as a result of his military service, specifically to his Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) while serving in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. The October 2023 rating decision on appeal made the favorable findings that (1) participation in a TERA is conceded because service department records show the Veteran participated in activities during service that required a corresponding entry in an exposure tracking record system, (2) the evidence shows that a qualifying event, injury, or disease had its onset during service because service treatment records show that the Veteran sought treatment for sinusitis on January 9, 1989, June 7, 1997 and March 11, 2004, and (3) evidence shows that the Veteran performed service in Southwest Asia because his service personnel records and DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge From Active Duty, confirm that he had service in Saudi Arabia; therefore, exposure to environmental hazards in Southwest Asia to include burn pits and airborne particulate matter, based on the Veteran's military service in Saudi Arabia is conceded. These favorable finding by the AOJ are binding on the Board absent clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Notwithstanding the lack of evidence of disease or injury during service, service connection may still be granted if all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. See 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d); Cosman v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 503 (1992). To establish a right to compensation for a present disability, the evidence 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. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2010). The determination as to whether the requirements for service connection are met is based on an analysis of all the evidence of record and the evaluation of its credibility and probative value. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A "current disability" means a disability shown by competent medical evidence to exist. Chelte v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 268 (1997). With any claim for service connection, it is necessary for a current disability to be present. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007) (recognizing the disability could arise at any time during the claim); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (recognizing disabilities that occur immediately prior to filing of a claim). The requirement that a current disability be present is satisfied "when the claimant 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, 321 (2007). A disability under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 refers to functional impairment of earning capacity. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (2018). While the Federal Circuit in Saunders only considered pain, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that Saunders is not limited to pain; rather, the definition of "disability" in 38 U.S.C. § 1110 includes any condition that results in "functional impairment of earning capacity." Martinez-Bodon v. Wilkie, 32 Vet. App. 393, 398 (2020). An October 2023 VA Sinusitis/Rhinitis and Other Conditions of the Nose, Throat, Larynx and Pharynx Disability Benefits Questionnaire (VA examination) shows diagnoses of allergic rhinitis and acute sinusitis (the examiner did not check the box for a diagnosis of chronic sinusitis). The examiner noted the Veteran described "[e]xposure to burn pits while in the first gulf war and Saudi Arabia [and] reports having chronic sinusitis." His current symptoms were always having a runny nose, congestion and coughing at night. He also reported experiencing sinus headaches and difficulty focusing. The Veteran treated with Flonase and over the counter sinus medication. On examination, the examiner noted the conditions of rhinitis and deviated nasal septum (traumatic) (the box indicating a sinusitis condition was not checked and no symptoms attributable to sinusitis were noted). Sinus X-ray showed normal paranasal sinus series. Although the Veteran has reported treating his sinusitis symptoms with Flonase and over the counter medications, the clinical evidence during the appeal period, including his VA treatment records, does not reflect any diagnoses or reports of symptoms pertaining to sinusitis. In this case, there is persuasive evidence indicating that the Veteran did not have chronic sinusitis during or proximate to the appeal period. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran's service treatment records show treatment for sinus problems; these are included as favorable findings in the rating decision on appeal. Further, the Board is aware that chronic sinusitis is one of the illnesses listed under the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins Act of 2022 (PACT Act) as being eligible for presumptive service connection based on service in Southwest Asia. 38 C.F.R. §§ 1119, 1120. However, the October 2023 VA examination report shows that, upon examination and review of the pertinent evidence, the examiner concluded that the Veteran did not meet the criteria for a diagnosis of sinusitis. (A diagnosis of allergic rhinitis was noted and is now service-connected.) The VA examination report notes the Veteran's report of being treated for sinusitis during service; however, the examiner did not provide a diagnosis of sinusitis, noted no ongoing treatment for sinusitis, and found X-ray revealed normal sinuses. Moreover, the Veteran's VA treatment records are silent for sinusitis. After carefully reviewing the record, the Board concludes that the evidence does not show a diagnosis of chronic sinusitis, or that any potentially existing symptoms resulted in functional impairment of earning capacity with respect to chronic sinusitis, during or proximate to the appeal period under consideration. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018). As there is no credible evidence to support any finding of a current diagnosis of chronic sinusitis, the claim must be denied. In the absence of proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). The Board has considered the Veteran's lay statements describing his symptoms and history; however, his symptoms were diagnosed as allergic rhinitis (for which he has been granted service connection). There is no evidence of current pathology indicating that the "current disability" requirement of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a) was met as to a diagnosis of chronic sinusitis. Even accepting as competent and credible the Veteran's lay reports of prior symptoms, he has not put forth competent or credible evidence of a current diagnosis. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Although chronic sinusitis is a presumptive condition under the PACT Act for those who served in Southwest Asia during qualifying periods; the clinical evidence of record does not support a finding that the Veteran has a diagnosis of chronic sinusitis. Until the record shows clinical evidence of a diagnosis of chronic sinusitis, service connection cannot be granted. As the evidence persuasively weighs against the Veteran's claim of service connection for chronic sinusitis, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim must be denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4 th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). 3. Entitlement to a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis is denied. The Veteran disagrees with the zero percent initial rating assigned for his allergic rhinitis. He has advanced no argument as to why an increased initial rating is warranted. Disability ratings are based on a schedule of reductions in earning capacity from specific injuries or combination of injuries. The ratings shall be based, as far as practicable, upon the average impairments of earning capacity resulting from such injuries in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. Generally, the degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for considerable loss of working time from exacerbations or illnesses proportionate to the severity of the several grades of disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the evidence is persuasively against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). To evaluate the level of disability and any changes in condition, it is necessary to consider the complete medical history of the Veteran's condition. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589, 594 (1991). Staged ratings are appropriate for any rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods during the appeal period where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007); Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999). Where the question is the propriety of the initial evaluation assigned, consideration of the medical evidence since the effective date of the award of service connection is required. Fenderson, at 126. Where the question is the propriety of a non-initial evaluation, consideration of the evidence up to one year prior to the filing of the claim is appropriate. See Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979, 982 (Fed. Cir. 2010). In McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28 (2000), the Court held that when evidence is created is irrelevant compared to when the Veteran was actually experiencing the symptoms. Thus, the Board will consider whether the evidence suggests that the severity of the Veteran's symptoms increased sometime prior to the date of the examination reports. As noted above, under the AMA, the Board is bound by favorable findings of the AOJ in the absence of evidence of clear and unmistakable error. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104. The October 2023 AOJ decision on appeal did not provide any favorable findings as to the Veteran's allergic rhinitis claim. However, the October 2023 decision granted a service connection and assigned an initial noncompensable rating for the Veteran's allergic rhinitis effective August 10, 2022, the date of the change in the law (PACT Act) allowing VA to grant the claim. Therefore. the appeal period under consideration is from August 10, 2022, to October 23, 2023, the date of notification of the October 2023 rating decision on appeal. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis has been rated under Code 6522, for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Code 6522. Diagnostic Code 6522 does not provide for a noncompensable rating. However, in every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a diagnostic code, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31. Under Code 6522, a 10 percent rating is assigned for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. The highest rating of 30 percent is assigned for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis with polyps. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Code 6522. As noted discussed above, the October 2023 VA examination report shows a diagnosis of allergic rhinitis. The Veteran endorsed current symptoms of runny nose, congestion and coughing at night which have an occupation functional impact of "sinus headaches that make him miss a few days" and "difficulty focusing." He reported treatment with Flonase and over the counter sinus medications. On examination, the examiner found that the Veteran does not have polyps or granulomatous conditions, there was less than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides, less than complete obstruction on either side, and no permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates. Sinus X-ray shows normal paranasal sinus series. VA treatment records for the period on appeal do not reflect complaints or treatment for rhinitis. The Board has reviewed all of the lay and medical evidence of record in conjunction with the applicable laws and regulations and finds that an initial compensable rating is not warranted during the appeal period. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's report of runny nose, congestion and coughing at night which have an occupation functional impact of "sinus headaches that make him miss a few days" and "difficulty focusing." However, the evidence does not show that his symptoms have resulted in additional functional limitation (50 percent obstruction of both nasal passages or complete obstruction of one nasal passage) so as to support a finding that the disability picture more nearly approximates a compensable disability rating for the any part of the rating period on appeal. In addition, because allergic rhinitis is specifically listed in the rating schedule, it may not be rated by analogy under a different Code. See Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 337 (2015) ("when a condition is specifically listed in the Schedule, it may not be rated by analogy. VA must apply the diagnostic codes that specifically pertain to the listed conditions and determine the appropriate disability ratings"). Therefore, no other diagnosed codes which might provide a compensable rating on an alternative basis are applicable. The Board has also considered that, in assigning a disability rating, VA may not consider the ameliorative effects of medication where such effects are not explicitly contemplated by the rating criteria. See Jones v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56, 61 (2012). The use of medication is not explicitly considered in the rating criteria for Code 6522. Although the Veteran has reported treatment with Flonase and over the counter medications; he has not claimed, and the evidence does not suggest, that he would have nasal polyps or any other symptoms to support the assignment of an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for allergic rhinitis under Code 6522 but for the use of medication at any time during the appeal period under consideration. Further, while the Veteran, as a layperson, is competent to report the symptoms he has experienced, he has not been shown to have the requisite knowledge or training to be deemed competent to identify a specific level of disability for his allergic rhinitis according to the rating criteria. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Such competent evidence concerning the nature and extent of the Veteran's allergic rhinitis has been provided by the above discussed evidence, including the October 2023 VA examination report. Moreover, as discussed above, the Veteran has not asserted he has had obstruction of the nasal passage on either side due to rhinitis, permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbines, and/or nasal polyps. The Board has considered the Veteran's claim for an increased rating of his service-connected allergic rhinitis and decided entitlement based on the evidence. The Veteran has not raised any other issues, nor have any other issues been reasonably raised by the record, with respect to this claim. See Doucette v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 366, 369-70 (2017) (confirming that the Board is not required to address issues unless they are specifically raised by the claimant or reasonably raised by the evidence of record). Accordingly, the Board concludes that the evidence is persuasively against the claim for a compensable initial rating for allergic rhinitis. As the evidence is persuasively against the assigment of an increased rating, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F. 4 th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (only when the evidence persuasively favors one side or another is the benefit of the doubt doctrine not for application). M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Hughes, Kshama 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.