Citation Nr: A25041216 Decision Date: 05/06/25 Archive Date: 05/06/25 DOCKET NO. 240521-452057 DATE: May 6, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is granted. Entitlement to a schedular rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome, is granted. The reduction of the rating for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) from 30 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2023, was proper; therefore, restoration of the 30 percent rating is denied. The reduction of the rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective September 1, 2023, was proper; therefore, restoration of the 40 percent rating is denied. The reduction of the rating for sciatic radiculopathy right leg from 40 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024, was proper; therefore, restoration of the 40 percent rating is denied. The reduction of the rating for sciatic radiculopathy left leg from 10 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024, was proper; therefore, restoration of the 10 percent rating is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, hypertension began during active service. 2. The Veteran's allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome, is active, but does not result in incapacitating episodes or visual impairment. 3. The evidence of record at the time of the rating reduction for IBS shows an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work and supported a rating reduction from 30 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2023. 4. The evidence of record at the time of the rating reduction for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease shows an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work and supported a rating reduction from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective September 1, 2023. 5. The evidence of record at the time of the rating reduction for sciatic radiculopathy right leg shows an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work and supported a rating reduction from 40 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024. 6. The evidence of record at the time of the rating reduction for sciatic radiculopathy left leg shows an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work and supported a rating reduction from 10 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for hypertension have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. 2. The criteria for an initial rating of 10 percent, but no higher, for allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome, have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1-4.7, 4.21, 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6018. 3. The criteria for restoration of the reduction of the rating for IBS from 30 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2023, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344, 4.114, Diagnostic Code 7319 (2019). 4. The criteria for restoration of the reduction of the rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective September 1, 2023, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5242. 5. The criteria for restoration of the reduction of the rating for sciatic radiculopathy right leg from 40 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. 6. The criteria for restoration of the reduction of the rating for sciatic radiculopathy left leg from 10 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.344, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from March 1993 to May 2001 and October 2001 to October 2002. He had additional service in the Naval Reserve from May 2001 to March 2004. During his honorable service, the Veteran was awarded the Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal and the Southwest Asia Service Medal. These matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from May 2023, June 2023, and October 2023 rating decisions issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the May 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the May 2023 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal as it pertains to hypertension and conjunctivitis with dry eye syndrome; the June 9, 2023 AOJ decision on appeal as it pertains to the reduction for IBS, the June 20, 2023 AOJ decision on appeal as it pertains to the reduction for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease; and the October 2023 AOJ decision on appeal as it pertains to bilateral lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. As an initial matter, the Board would like to clarify the scope of its decision as the Veteran listed numerous issues on his May 2024 VA Form 10182; some of which are not properly before the Board. First, as it pertains to the reductions for IBS, lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy, the Veteran's VA Form 10182 states the Veteran disagrees with the following: "sciatic radiculopathy left leg - 0% - evaluation of sciatic radiculopathy left leg, which is currently evaluated 10% disabling, is decreased to 0% effective January 1, 2024;" "sciatic radiculopathy right leg - 0% - evaluation of sciatic radiculopathy right leg, which is currently evaluated 40% disabling, is decreased to 0% effective January 1, 2024;" "degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine - 10% - evaluation of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, which is currently evaluated 40% disabling, is decreased to 10%;" "irritable bowel syndrome - 0% - evaluation of irritable bowel syndrome, which is currently evaluated 30% disabling, is decreased to 0% effective September 1, 2023." The Veteran then states the area of disagreement as: "service connection, effective date, disability evaluation." Next to each of the boilerplate sentences the Veteran writes that his condition has worsened or that he has additional symptoms. Based on the language included on the Veteran's May 2024 VA Form 10182, the Board finds that the Veteran is disagreeing only with the reductions in those disabilities. The Board notes that 38 C.F.R. 20.202(a) requires a liberal construction of the Veteran's Notice of Disagreement; however, such was not needed here as the VA Form 10182 is clear that the matter of disagreement concerns the rating reductions for IBS, lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. As the issues the Veteran wanted to appeal are clearly identified in the Notice of Disagreement, 38 C.F.R. § 20.202(f) is not for application. Second, the Veteran states he wishes to appeal the proposed rating reductions for bilateral leg sciatic radiculopathy. A proposed rating reduction is not a final decision upon which an appeal may be initiated. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.201; Shipley v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 458, 461-62 (2011). As such, those issues are not properly before the Board; however, there is no prejudice to the Veteran because this decision will address the propriety of the reductions for bilateral lower extremity sciatic radiculopathy. The Veteran also lists disagreement with "allergic conjunctivitis to include dry eye syndrome - 0% - evaluation of allergic conjunctivitis to include dry eye syndrome, which is currently 0% disabling, is continued." The Veteran then states the area of disagreement as: service connection, effective date, disability evaluation, burn pit exposure" and identifies the May 22, 2023 rating decision. However, that rating decision did not assign an effective date. As such, the Board finds the Veteran only appeals the assigned rating. Third, the Veteran lists the following additional items for appeal: allergic conjunctivitis to include dry eye syndrome and left shoulder strain, both from a May 1, 2023 rating decision; left shoulder scar, allergic conjunctivitis with dry eye syndrome, hypertension, and left shoulder strain, all from an April 2023 rating decision; degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine, foot pain, IBS, neck, runny nose/itchy eye and throat/coughing, sleep apnea, all from a February 2023 rating decision. Unfortunately, the May 21, 2024 VA Form 10182 is not timely as to the issues appealed from the following rating decisions: May 1, 2023, April 2023, and February 2023. Where a VA Form 10182 is not timely filed, the Board may grant an extension of time to file and accept the VA Form 10182 as timely filed where good cause has been shown. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203(c). A request for such an extension must be in writing and must be filed with the Board. Whether good cause for an extension has been established will be determined by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.203. The Veteran has not requested an extension of the time to file and accept the VA Form 10182 as it pertains to the May 1, 2023, April 2023, and February 2023 rating decisions. Therefore, the Board finds that good cause has not been shown to extend the time to file the VA Form 10182 with respect to those rating decisions. Notably, the representative's August 2024 appellate brief identifies the issues on the title page as the issues on appeal. Lastly, the Board acknowledges VA regulations provide that, "[u]pon request, a claimant is entitled to a hearing on any issue involved in a claim . . . before VA issues notice of a decision on an initial or supplemental claim." 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(d)(1). That regulation does not indicate that the claimant is entitled to pre-decisional notice of this optional hearing. In fact, 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(b)(1) provides that, following a decision, "[c]laimants and their representatives are entitled to notice of any decision made by VA affecting the payment of benefits or the granting of relief . . . [including] the right to a hearing on any issue involved in the claim as provided in paragraph (d) of this section ...." Read together with § 3.103(d), the only notice § 3.103(b) requires is that a claimant be provided notice of the right for a hearing with notification of the decision (by definition, a post-decisional notice). In November 2022, VA amended VA Form 21-526EZ and in May 2024 VA amended VA Form 20-0995 to inform claimants of the right to a hearing at any time during the claims process. The claim in this appeal was adjudicated prior to these amended versions. However, the Board finds that any error in the failure to inform the Veteran of the right to a pre-decisional hearing before the RO was harmless error. In Bowen v. Shinseki, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) found that when a claimant is denied a hearing before the RO, there is no due process violation if he is subsequently offered the opportunity for a hearing before the Board, even if a hearing was not requested or conducted, as long as there is no violation of due process concerning the Board hearing opportunity. Bowen v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 250, 253-4 (2012). The facts in the case can be differentiated on several levels, to include that the Veteran did not actually request an RO hearing and the issue in Bowen was not one of notice. Regardless, the Board cannot find a basis to conclude that the underlying holding and logic of the Bowen case would not lead to the same finding of no prejudicial error under the procedure and facts of this case. In February 17, 2023 and June 13, 2023 notification letters, VA informed the Veteran of a proposal to reduce service connected compensation for IBS, lumbar spine degenerative disc disease, and bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The notification letters included information on how to obtain a personal hearing to present evidence or argument as to these issues and included VA Form 21-0789, Your Rights to Representation and a Hearing, which outlined the Veteran's options for a hearing before the RO. The Veteran did not respond to these letters or request a personal hearing. The Board thus finds that the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 and Bowen have been satisfied. Bowen, 25 Vet. App. 250. As it pertains to the claims of hypertension and allergic conjunctivitis with dry eye syndrome, the June 22, 2023, and October 4, 2023, notification letters informing the Veteran of the rating decisions included a VA Form 20-0998, Your Right to Seek Review of Our Decision, outlining the Veteran's appeal options, to include a hearing before the Board. Additionally, in the May 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran was provided with an option to request a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. The Veteran instead selected direct review by a Veterans Law Judge, and the form explicitly states that by choosing this option, the Veteran does not want a Board hearing. Because the Veteran was provided with notice of the right to appeal to the Board, as well as the right to a Board hearing, there was no due process violation in the processing of the claims or any suggestion that the Veteran was prejudiced by the failure of VA to provide a hearing at the RO level. See Bowen, 25 Vet. App. 250. Service Connection Generally, to establish service connection 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." Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service connection may also be granted for any injury or disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence establishes that the disease or injury was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Certain chronic diseases, including hypertension, will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(a). 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. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Lay evidence cannot be determined to be not credible merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-37 (Fed. Cir. 2006). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue, the benefit of the doubt shall be given to the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When the evidence persuasively favors one side or the other, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Entitlement to service connection for hypertension. The Veteran claims service connection for hypertension, to include as secondary to his service-connected lumbar spine degenerative disc disease. As an initial matter, the May 2023 rating decision made favorable findings that the Veteran is currently diagnosed with hypertension, the claimed primary disability of lumbar spine degenerative disc disease is service-connected, and participation in a toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) is conceded. See January 2023 Hypertension DBQ; February 2023 TERA Memorandums. The Board is bound by these favorable findings, unless rebutted by evidence that identifies a clear and unmistakable error in the favorable finding. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(c), 20.801(a). For the reasons that follow, the Board finds that service connection for hypertension is warranted on a direct basis, therefore secondary service connection and service connection pursuant to the PACT Act will not be addressed. VA regulations provide that hypertension or isolated systolic hypertension must be confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days. For purposes of service connection, the term hypertension means that the diastolic blood pressure is predominantly 90mm. or greater, and isolated systolic hypertension means that the systolic blood pressure is predominantly 160mm. or greater with a diastolic blood pressure of less than 90mm. The Veteran's September 1992 enlistment examination does not note hypertension or high blood pressure. The Veteran's blood pressure upon entrance was measured at 134/88. The Veteran's September 1992 report of medical history does not reflect complaints of high blood pressure. The Veteran had his blood pressure measured numerous times throughout service. However, on three occasions, the Veteran's blood pressure readings met VA's definition of hypertension: a July 1995 reading of 143/91, a March 1997 reading of 115/97, and an October 1999 reading of 149/94. The Veteran's January 2001 separation examination does not note hypertension or high blood pressure. The Veteran's blood pressure upon separation is not associated with the record. The Veteran's January 2001 report of medical history does not reflect complaints of high blood pressure. A May 2001 affiliation report of medical history does not reflect complaints of high blood pressure. The corresponding report of medical examination is not associated with the record. Private treatment records from September 1999, during the Veteran's first period of active service, document hypertension in his problems list. See Southgate Medical Clinic. The same clinic documented hypertension again in a June 2001 treatment record. Id. VA treatment records reveal the Veteran was evaluated one day after he was discharged from service and reveal his blood pressure was 163/89. The following day, two days after discharge from service, his blood pressure was 162/94. The following day, the Veteran's blood pressure was 142/92. A December 2002 treatment record states the Veteran is hypertensive and his blood pressure was 144/83. A February 2003 record reveals a blood pressure reading of 143/91. A February 2004 treatment record states the Veteran may have hypertension or be pre-hypertensive; his blood pressure was 140/92. A November 2005 record reveals the Veteran was diagnosed with hypertension and his blood pressure was 134/90. Private treatment records reveal the Veteran has been prescribed multiple medications to lower his blood pressure. Specifically, between 1996 and 2004 the Veteran was prescribed Lisinopril and Toprol XL (Metoprolol). See Southgate Medical Clinic. Treatment records from 2022 reveal the Veteran is currently taking Metoprolol for treatment of his hypertension. See August 2022 Proliance Surgeons. The Veteran attended a VA hypertension examination in January 2023. The Veteran reported he's had elevated blood pressure for many years and that he has been treated with a beta blocker. The Veteran reported he is currently taking Metoprolol for treatment. The Veteran's blood pressure readings during the examination were: 124/80, 120/84, and 126/78. The examiner stated the Veteran does not have a history of diastolic blood pressure elevation to predominantly 100 or more. The examiner diagnosed hypertension. A medical opinion addressing direct service connection was not obtained. Based on the above, the Board finds direct service connection is warranted for hypertension. The Veteran had three elevated blood pressure readings during service, confirmed by readings taken two or more times on at least three different days, that meet VA's definition of hypertension, and importantly, a private treatment record during active service noted the Veteran has hypertension. The VA diagnosed the Veteran with hypertension in November 2005 and treatment records show elevated blood pressure readings since service, to include the day after discharge. In sum, the record reveals that hypertension was noted during service with continuity of symptomatology since service. As such, service connection is warranted for hypertension on a direct basis. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.309(a). Increased Ratings Disability evaluations are determined by the application of the facts presented to VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule) in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and the residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321(a), 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher rating 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. In evaluating the severity of a particular disability, it is essential to consider its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary importance. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). A claimant may experience multiple distinct degrees of disability that might result in different levels of compensation from the time the increased rating claim was filed until a final decision is made. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The analysis in the following decision is therefore undertaken with consideration of the possibility that different ratings may be warranted for different time periods. If the evidence for and against a claim is approximately balanced, the claim will be granted. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. A claim will be denied only if the record persuasively weighs against the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see Lynch, 21 F.4th 776. Any reasonable doubt regarding the degree of disability should be resolved in favor of the claimant. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome. The Veteran claims an increased rating for allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome. As an initial matter, the Board notes that an April 17, 2023 rating decision granted service connection for allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome, and assigned a 10 percent rating, effective October 5, 2021. On April 28, 2023, the RO decreased the rating to 0 percent, effective August 10, 2022, based on a special review. It appears the RO called an error on the original effective date but did not update the rating decision code sheet accordingly. The RO is invited to correct the rating code sheet to reflect this error and effective date change. On May 18, 2023, the RO continued the 0 percent rating based on another special review. This decision was issued on May 23, 2023. The May 21, 2024 VA Form 10182 is not timely as to the following rating decisions: May 1, 2023, April 28, 2023, and April 17, 2023. As such, this claim is properly characterized as an increased rating claim as opposed to an initial increased rating claim. The Veteran's allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye syndrome are evaluated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, Diagnostic Code 6018, for chronic conjunctivitis. Under this diagnostic code, inactive conjunctivitis is evaluated based on residuals, such as visual impairment and disfigurement (diagnostic code 7800). Active conjunctivitis is evaluated under the General Rating Formula for Diseases of the Eye ("General Formula") with a minimum rating of 10 percent. Under the General Formula, eye disabilities are evaluated based on either visual impairment due to the disability or on incapacitating episodes, whichever results in the higher evaluation. Visual disabilities rated on visual impairment may be rated based on impairment of central visual acuity, impairment of visual fields, or impairment of muscle function. Evaluation of visual acuity is based on corrected distance vision with central fixation, and the visual acuity measurements for each eye are applied to the table for Impairment of Central Visual Acuity. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(b)(1). Generally, the table is divided into steps corresponding to different levels of visual acuity for one eye, and each step is further divided into subsections of visual acuity for the other eye, with corresponding ratings. Where a reported visual acuity is between two sequentially listed visual acuities, the visual acuity which permits the higher evaluation will be used. 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(c). Evaluation of visual field is based on the remaining field of vision in each eye. With respect to field of vision impairment, 38 C.F.R. § 4.76a, Table III, reflects that the normal visual field extent at the 8 principal meridians totals 500 degrees. Normal findings for the 8 principal meridians are as follows: 85 degrees temporally; 85 degrees down temporally; 65 degrees down; 50 degrees down nasally; 60 degrees nasally; 55 degrees up nasally; 45 degrees up; and 55 degrees up temporally. The extent of visual field contraction in each eye is determined by recording the extent of the remaining visual field in each of the eight 45-degree principal meridians. To calculate average concentric contraction, the rater should add the remaining visual field (in degrees) at each of eight principal meridians 45 degrees apart and divide the sum by eight. 38 C.F.R. § 4.77(b). Evaluation of impairment of muscle function is based on the degree of diplopia. The examiner must record test results for the four major quadrants (upward, downward, and right and left lateral) and the central field (20 degrees or less). 38 C.F.R. § 4.78(a). An evaluation for diplopia will be assigned to only one eye. An incapacitating episode is defined as an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes. Examples of treatment may include but are not limited to systemic immunosuppressants or biologic agents, intravitreal or periocular injections, laser treatments, or other surgical interventions. A 10 percent rating is warranted for documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 1 but less than 3 treatment visits over 12 months. A 20 percent rating is warranted for documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 3 but less than 5 treatment visits over 12 months. A 40 percent rating is warranted for documented incapacitating episodes requiring at least 5 but less than 7 treatment visits over 12 months. A 60 percent rating is warranted for documented incapacitating episodes requiring 7 or more treatment visits over 12 months. Note (1) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluations under 38 C.F.R. § 4.79, an incapacitating episode is an eye condition severe enough to require a clinic visit to a provider specifically for treatment purposes. Note (2) indicates that examples of treatment may include but are not limited to: systemic immunosuppressants or biologic agents; intravitreal or periocular injections; laser treatments; or other surgical interventions. Note (3) indicates that, for the purposes of evaluating visual impairment due to a particular condition, refer to 38 C.F.R. § 4.75-4.78 and to § 4.79, diagnostic codes 6061-6091. The claims file does not contain VA or private treatment records pertaining to treatment for the Veteran's allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome. The Veteran attended a VA eye conditions examination in January 2023. He stated he is taking an oral antihistamine for allergic conjunctivitis. The Veteran's current symptoms consist of itchy eyes, blurry vision, dryness, and eye irritation. Distance vision was 20/40 corrected to 20/20 bilaterally. Near vision was 20/100 corrected to 20/20 bilaterally. Pupils were normal. There was no anatomical loss, no light perception only, no extremely poor vision, and no blindness. There was no astigmatism or diplopia. There were no documented visual field defects. The examiner diagnosed bilateral allergic conjunctivitis and bilateral dry eye syndrome. The examiner noted that conjunctivitis was active bilaterally without decrease in visual acuity or other visual impairment, and that dry eye syndrome did not require treatment and did not result in decreased visual acuity or other visual impairment. There was no glaucoma. The Veteran did not have any incapacitating episodes during the past 12 months. The examiner stated the Veteran's allergic conjunctivitis and dry eye syndrome do not impact his ability to work. In August 2024, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief stating that 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. The Board finds this argument to be vague as it does not address which part of the schedule it pertains to and the Board will not address it further. The Board finds that an evaluation of 10 percent, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran's allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome. The January 2023 examiner stated the Veteran has active bilateral allergic conjunctivitis, and there is no evidence to the contrary. Higher ratings are available for incapacitating episodes, for impaired visual acuity, for concentric contraction of the visual fields, or for impairment of the bilateral visual fields. The evidence persuasively weighs against such findings. The Veteran denied receiving treatment for his eye disabilities and the January 2023 VA eye examination found there was no impairment of central visual acuity, impairment of visual fields, or impairment of muscle function. Similarly, while the Veteran reports blurry vision, his distance vision was measured as corrected to 20/20 bilaterally and thus does not support a higher rating. For these reasons, the Board finds that an initial rating of 10 percent, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran's allergic conjunctivitis, to include dry eye syndrome. Rating Reductions Specific notice requirements apply to a reduction in rating when the reduction results in a change in the amount of benefits received. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e), where the reduction in the rating of a service-connected disability is considered warranted, and the lower evaluation would result in a reduction or discontinuance of compensation payments currently being made, a reduction may be made, but only after following certain procedural guidelines. The AOJ must issue a rating action proposing the reduction and setting forth all material facts and reasons for the reduction. The Veteran must then be given 60 days to submit additional evidence and 30 days to request a predetermination hearing. Then, a rating action will be taken to effectuate the reduction. The effective date of the reduction must be after the last day of the month in which a 60-day period from the notice of the rating action ends. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e), (i). The regulations provide that a rating at the same level for less than five years may be reduced if there is a reexamination showing improvement in the disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.344(c). To warrant a reduction, it must be determined not only that an improvement in the disability level has actually occurred, but also that such improvement actually reflects an improvement in the ability to function under the ordinary conditions of life and work. Brown v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 413, 420-21 (1993). The Board must focus on the evidence available to the AOJ at the time the reduction was effectuated, but pertinent post-reduction evidence may be considered to determine whether the condition had demonstrated actual improvement. Dofflemyer v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 277 (1992). The Board bears the burden to establish that rating reduction is warranted. Brown, 5 Vet. App. at 421. 1. Whether the reduction of the rating for IBS from 30 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2023, was proper. The Veteran contends his 30 percent rating for IBS should be restored. The Veteran's IBS is rated under Diagnostic Code 7319 as irritable colon syndrome. 38 C.F.R. § 4.114 (2019). Under the version of DC 7319, in effect prior to May 19, 2024, a noncompensable rating is warranted for mild disturbances of bowel function with occasional episodes of abdominal distress. A 10 percent rating is warranted for moderate symptoms with frequent episodes of bowel disturbance and abdominal distress. A 30 percent rating is warranted for severe symptoms with diarrhea or alternating diarrhea and constipation with more or less constant abdominal distress. A November 2020 rating decision granted service connection for IBS and assigned an initial 30 percent rating effective December 5, 2019. Thereafter, a February 15, 2023, rating decision proposed to reduce the rating assigned for IBS from 30 percent to 0 percent. The proposed reduction of the rating for IBS from 30 percent to 0 percent reduced the Veteran's combined rating from 90 percent to 70 percent and thus reduced his compensation payments. Therefore, the procedural requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) apply. The notice accompanying the February 2023 rating decision informed the Veteran of the 60-day period for the submission of evidence and of the right to request a predetermination hearing within 30 days. The Veteran did not request a hearing. A June 9, 2023 rating decision reduced the Veteran's IBS rating to 0 percent effective September 1, 2023. As such, the previous 30 percent rating for IBS was in effect for less than five years. The Board finds that VA fully complied with the procedural requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) in reducing the Veteran's rating. He was provided notice of the proposed reduction in February 2023 and given the opportunity to respond. The Veteran did not respond or provide additional evidence. He was provided notice of the June 2023 rating decision on appeal in a letter dated June 13, 2023. The reduction did not take effect until September 1, 2023, after the 60-day period lapsed on August 31, 2023. As such, there are no procedural deficiencies in the reduction. In October 2020, the Veteran provided VA with an Intestinal Conditions Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) completed by a private clinician. The Veteran reported his disability began during service and has worsened over time. The disability began with abdominal distress and progressed to frequent episode of continuous pain. The Veteran is taking Omeprazole and requires continued medication for control of the disability. The Veteran had the following signs and symptoms attributable to his intestinal disability: alternating diarrhea and constipation, abdominal distention, and acid reflux. The Veteran experienced episodes of bowel disturbance with abdominal distress that are more or less constant. His episodes of exacerbation have occurred 7 or more times during the past 12 months. The Veteran does not have malnutrition or neoplasm. The clinician diagnosed IBS and stated the Veteran's disability impacts his ability to work because he has recurrent abdominal distress with alternating episodes of diarrhea and constipation. The Veteran's initial 30 percent rating is based on the results of the October 2020 DBQ provided by the Veteran. The Veteran provided a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization for Release of Information, with his claim in September 2022 authorizing VA to obtain private medical records from Providence Medical Center. VA requested the records multiple times but never received them. The Veteran was notified of the unavailability of the private records in correspondence dated September 15, 2022, October 3, 2022, and October 18, 2022. The Veteran was advised of his right to request an extension to gather the medical records; the Veteran did not request an extension. The Veteran was provided with an in-person VA examination in January 2023. The Veteran reported he has "rapid transit." He has a bowel movement each morning and has a bowel movement each time he eats. He had a colonoscopy a few months ago which was normal except for a benign polyp. The Veteran states he takes Imodium about once per week for rapid transit. The examiner stated continuous medication is not required for control of the Veteran's intestinal condition. The Veteran did not have any signs or symptoms attributable to an intestinal condition. He did not have episodes of bowel disturbance with abdominal distress, or exacerbations of the intestinal condition. The Veteran does not have weight loss attributable to the disability. The examiner diagnosed IBS and said the condition does not impact the Veteran's ability to work. The examiner explained that the Veteran's IBS has resolved. The Veteran did not report any active evaluation or treatment for IBS and the need for Imodium once per week for complaints of rapid transit does not constitute a diagnosis of IBS. The Veteran does not complain of constipation or diarrhea, but rather rapid transit with the need to have a bowel movement shortly after he eats, which in reality is an overactive gastrocolic reflex. There is no weight loss, the Veteran is obese at 62 inches and 210 lbs. There are no VA or private treatment records that pertain to IBS. In August 2024, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief that provided the text of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, which pertains to revision of decisions. The representative raised no other arguments or contentions. The Board finds this boilerplate language to be vague and conclusory and the Board will not address it further. The Board further finds that restoration of the Veteran's 30 percent rating is not warranted. A 30 percent rating is warranted for severe symptoms with diarrhea or alternating diarrhea and constipation with more or less constant abdominal distress. The evidence persuasively weighs against such a finding. The January 2023 VA examination reveals the Veteran's IBS is resolved and that he has rapid transit, which the examiner stated is not the same as IBS. He does not have any signs or symptoms attributable to an intestinal condition and does not have episodes of bowel disturbance with abdominal distress or exacerbations of an intestinal condition. The evidence shows a clear improvement and the disability no longer impacts the Veteran's ability to work; by its nature, such improvement reflects an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under ordinary conditions of life and work. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to contradict these findings. For these reasons, the Board finds that restoration of the Veteran's 30 percent rating for IBS is not warranted. Consequently, the Board finds that the reduction from 30 percent to 0 percent, effective September 1, 2023, was proper, and the appeal for restoration of a 30 percent rating for IBS is denied. 2. Whether the reduction of the rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective September 1, 2023, was proper. The Veteran contends his 40 percent rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease should be restored. The Veteran's lumbar spine degenerative disc disease is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5242. Under the General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine, a 10 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 60 degrees but not greater than 85 degrees; or, combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 120 degrees but not greater than 235 degrees; or, muscle spasm, guarding, or localized tenderness not resulting in abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour; or, vertebral body fracture with loss of 50 percent or more of the height. A 20 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine greater than 30 degrees but not greater than 60 degrees; or the combined range of motion of the thoracolumbar spine not greater than 120 degrees; or, muscle spasm or guarding severe enough to result in an abnormal gait or abnormal spinal contour such as scoliosis, reversed lordosis, or abnormal kyphosis. A 40 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 50 percent rating is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent evaluation is warranted for unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Diseases and Injuries of the Spine. Any associated objective neurological abnormalities, including, but not limited to, bowel or bladder impairment, are to be evaluated separately under an appropriate diagnostic code. Id. at Note 1. When evaluating musculoskeletal disabilities based on limitation of motion, 38 C.F.R. § 4.40 requires consideration of functional loss caused by pain or other factors listed in that section that could occur during flare-ups or after repeated use and, therefore, not be reflected on range-of-motion testing. 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 requires consideration also be given to less movement than normal, more movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, and pain on movement. See DeLuca v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 202 (1995); see also Mitchell v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 32, 44 (2011). Nonetheless, even when the background factors listed in § 4.40 or 4.45 are relevant when evaluating a disability, the rating is assigned based on the extent to which motion is limited, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a; a separate or higher rating under § 4.40 or 4.45 itself is not appropriate. See Thompson v. McDonald, 815 F.3d 781, 785 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("[I]t is clear that the guidance of § 4.40 is intended to be used in understanding the nature of the veteran's disability, after which a rating is determined based on the § 4.71a criteria."). Under 38 C.F.R. § 4.59, painful motion is a factor to be considered with any form of arthritis; however, 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 is not limited to disabilities involving arthritis. See Burton v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 1 (2011). In Correia v. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 158 (2016), the Court held that the final sentence of 38 C.F.R. § 4.59 requires that the examiner record the results of range of motion testing "for pain on both active and passive motion [and] in weight-bearing and non-weight-bearing and, if possible, with range of motion measurements of the opposite undamaged joint." The spine has no opposite joint. In Sharp v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 26 (2017), the Court held that VA examiners must obtain information about the severity, frequency, duration, precipitating and alleviating factors, and extent of functional impairment of flares from the veterans themselves, when a flare-up is not observable at the time of examination. A June 2003 rating decision granted service connection for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and assigned an initial 20 percent rating effective October 16, 2002. A November 2020 rating decision increased the rating to 40 percent effective December 5, 2019. Thereafter, a February 15, 2023, rating decision proposed to reduce the rating assigned for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease from 40 percent to 10 percent. The proposed reduction of the rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease from 40 percent to 10 percent reduced the Veteran's combined rating from 90 percent to 70 percent and thus reduced his compensation payments. Therefore, the procedural requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) apply. The notice accompanying the February 2023 rating decision informed the Veteran of the 60-day period for the submission of evidence and of the right to request a predetermination hearing within 30 days. The Veteran did not request a hearing. A June 20, 2023 rating decision reduced the Veteran's IBS rating to 0 percent effective September 1, 2023. As such, the previous 40 percent rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease was in effect for less than five years. The Board finds that VA fully complied with the procedural requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) in reducing the Veteran's rating. He was provided notice of the proposed reduction in February 2023 and given the opportunity to respond. The Veteran did not respond or provide additional evidence. He was provided notice of the June 2023 rating decision on appeal in a letter dated June 22, 2023. The reduction did not take effect until September 1, 2023, after the 60-day period lapsed on August 31, 2023. As such, there are no procedural deficiencies in the reduction. In October 2020, the Veteran provided VA with a Back Conditions DBQ completed by a private clinician. The Veteran reported back pain that began during service and that his disability has progressed since then. The Veteran reported flare-ups that consist of increased pain and that his back locks in place. The Veteran reported his functional loss as difficulty bending over, lifting, or walking any distance. Initial range of motion measurements revealed forward flexion limited to 30 degrees and that the abnormal range of motion contributes to functional loss. There was no additional range of motion loss after repetitive use testing. The Veteran experienced pain on active motion and pain on weight-bearing, which cause functional loss. The Veteran has localized tenderness or pain to palpation at L2-S1. The Veteran had muscle spasms but it did not affect his spinal contour. Additional contributing factors of disability include less movement than normal, weakened movement, excess fatigability, incoordination, pain on movement, swelling, and disturbance of locomotion. However, the examiner noted these additional factors are not associated with limitation of motion. There was no additional range of motion loss after repeated use over time or during flare-ups. Muscle strength was decreased bilaterally, but there was no muscle atrophy. There was no ankylosis. There were no additional neurologic abnormalities (other than radiculopathy, which will be discussed separately in the next section). The Veteran does not have Intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS) of the thoracolumbar spine. The Veteran does not use any assistive devices. The examiner diagnosed lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and stated the disability affects the Veteran's ability to work. The Veteran endorses worsening symptoms that affect his daily life and limit his ability to do activities such as running, playing sports, and walk for long periods of time. Standing increases the Veteran's back pain and causes tingling in his legs, making it difficult to complete general tasks. He must sit down until the pain subsides. The Veteran's 40 percent rating effective December 5, 2019, is based on the results of the October 2020 DBQ provided by the Veteran. In August 2022, the Veteran submitted the results of an October 2018 lumbar spine MRI. The impression stated the Veteran's spinal cord is unremarkable. There are bilateral pars defects at L5 without listhesis. There is no disk disease, no scoliosis, and no stenosis. The Veteran provided a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization for Release of Information, with his claim in September 2022 authorizing VA to obtain private medical records from Providence Medical Center. VA requested the records multiple times but never received them. The Veteran was notified of the unavailability of the private records in correspondence dated September 15, 2022, October 3, 2022, and October 18, 2022. The Veteran was advised of his right to request an extension to gather the medical records; the Veteran did not request an extension. There are no additional VA or private records concerning the Veteran's back disability. The Veteran was provided with an in-person VA back examination in January 2023. The Veteran reported back pain with bending and lifting. He denied receiving treatment for the disability since service. The Veteran stated he occasionally takes Aleve. He is working as a machine operator at Boeing. The Veteran did not report flare-ups. The Veteran reported his functional loss, including but not limited to after repeated use over time, as pain in his back, but he continues to work as a machine operator producing parts at Boeing. Initial range of motion measurements revealed forward flexion limited to 80 degrees and a combined range of motion for the thoracolumbar spine of 200. The examiner stated that the abnormal range of motion does not contribute to functional loss. There was pain in forward flexion, extension, right lateral flexion, and left lateral flexion. Passive range of motion was not tested because of "degenerative disc disease of the lumbar spine." There was pain in active motion, but it does not cause functional loss. There is evidence of crepitus, but no objective evidence of localized tenderness or pain on palpation of the joint or associated soft tissue. There was no additional range of motion loss after observed repetitive use testing. Repeated use over time was not tested, but procured statements indicate that there is no additional range of motion loss after repeated use over time. The Veteran did not have localized tenderness, guarding, or muscle spasms. There were no additional contributing factors of disability. Muscle strength was normal bilaterally, and there was no muscle atrophy. There was no ankylosis. There were no additional neurologic abnormalities (other than radiculopathy, which will be discussed separately in the next section). The Veteran does not have IVDS of the thoracolumbar spine. The Veteran does not use any assistive devices. The examiner diagnosed lumbar spine degenerative disc disease and stated the disability does not affect the Veteran's ability to work. A VA back examination addendum was completed in June 2023 to clarify the January 2023 examination. The examiner stated the Veteran subjectively reported functional limitations after repeated use over time; but upon observed testing, the Veteran did not demonstrate functional limitations after repeated use over time. In August 2024, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief that provided the text of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, which pertains to revision of decisions. The representative raised no other arguments or contentions. The Board finds this boilerplate language to be vague and conclusory and the Board will not address it further The Board finds that restoration of the Veteran's 40 percent rating is not warranted. A 40 percent rating is warranted for forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine to 30 degrees or less; or, favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. The evidence persuasively weighs against such a finding. The January 2023 VA examination reveals the Veteran's lumbar spine degenerative disc disease results in forward flexion limited to 80 degrees at its most severe, and the Veteran does not have ankylosis. The evidence shows a clear improvement and the disability no longer impacts the Veteran's ability to work; by its nature, such improvement reflects an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under ordinary conditions of life and work. There is no evidence in the record to contradict these findings. In addition, the Veteran denied flare-ups. For these reasons, the Board finds that restoration of the Veteran's 40 percent rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease is not warranted. Consequently, the Board finds that the reduction from 40 percent to 10 percent, effective September 1, 2023, was proper, and the appeal for restoration of a 40 percent rating for lumbar spine degenerative disc disease is denied. 3. Whether the reduction of the rating for sciatic radiculopathy right leg from 40 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024, was proper. 4. Whether the reduction of the rating for sciatic radiculopathy left leg from 10 percent to 0 percent, effective January 1, 2024, was proper. The Veteran contends his 40 percent rating for sciatic radiculopathy right leg and 10 percent rating for sciatic radiculopathy left leg should be restored. The Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy is rated under 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8520, sciatic nerve paralysis. Under these criteria, mild incomplete paralysis is rated as 10 percent disabling. Moderate incomplete paralysis is rated as 20 percent disabling. Moderately severe incomplete paralysis is rated as 40 percent disabling. Severe incomplete paralysis, with marked muscular atrophy is rated as 60 percent disabling. Complete paralysis, with the foot dangles and drops, no active movement possible of muscles below the knee, flexion of knee weakened or (very rarely) lost is rated as 80 percent disabling. Id. The words "mild," "moderate," and "severe" as used in the various Diagnostic Codes are not defined in the Rating Schedule. Regulations provide that ratings for peripheral neurological disorders are to be assigned based on the relative impairment of motor function, trophic changes, or sensory disturbance. 38 C.F.R. § 4.120. Consideration is also given for loss of reflexes, pain, and muscle atrophy. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.123, 4.124. VA's Adjudication Procedures Manual (M21-1) provides guidance in the assignment and definition of the terms mild, moderate, moderately-severe, and severe peripheral nerve conditions. However, although the Board is not bound by the M21-1, it is required to discuss any relevant provisions contained in the M21-1 and conduct its own analysis before determining whether the M21-1 provisions may be relied upon to support its decision, thereby fulfilling part of its duty to provide adequate reasons or bases for its decision. Chavis v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 1, 17-18 (2021). The "mild" level of evaluation is reasonably assigned when sensory symptoms are recurrent but not continuous, assigned a lower medical grade reflecting less impairment, and/or affecting a smaller area in the nerve distribution. M21-1, Part V, Subpart iii, Chapter 12, Section A.2.c. The "moderate" level of evaluation is reserved for the most significant and disabling cases of sensory-only involvement. These are cases where the sensory symptoms are continuous, the symptoms are assigned a higher medical grade reflecting greater impairment and/or they affect a larger area in the nerve distribution. Id. Moderate is the maximum evaluation that can be assigned for neuralgia, characterized usually by a dull and intermittent pain in the distribution of a nerve. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124. "Moderately severe" incomplete paralysis is only applicable to the sciatic nerve and is the maximum rating for sciatic nerve neuritis not characterized by the organic changes specified in 38 C.F.R. § 4.123. This term would be appropriate for motor and/or reflex impairment (for example, weakness or diminished or hyperactive reflexes) at a grade reflecting a high level of limitation or disability. Atrophy may be present. M21-1, Part V, Subpart iii, Chapter 12, Section A.2.c. Marked muscle atrophy is expected for "severe" paralysis of the sciatic nerve. In general, severe incomplete paralysis of a peripheral nerve involves motor and/or reflex impairment (for example atrophy, weakness, or diminished or hyperactive reflexes) at a grade reflecting a very high level of limitation or disability. Neuritis characterized by loss of reflexes, muscle atrophy, sensory disturbances, and constant pain should be rated as high as severe incomplete paralysis of the nerve. Id. A March 2005 rating decision granted service connection for right leg and left leg sciatic radiculopathy and assigned each side an initial 10 percent rating effective September 21, 2004. A November 2020 rating decision increased right leg sciatic radiculopathy to 40 percent and increased left leg sciatic radiculopathy to 40 percent, both effective December 5, 2019. A December 2022 rating decision reduced the rating for left leg sciatic radiculopathy from 40 percent to 10 percent effective September 1, 2022. Thereafter, a June 9, 2023, rating decision proposed to reduce the rating assigned for right leg sciatic radiculopathy from 40 percent to 0 percent and proposed to reduce the rating for left leg sciatic radiculopathy from 10 percent to 0 percent. The proposed reduction of the ratings for right and left leg sciatic radiculopathy reduced the Veteran's combined rating from 90 percent to 70 percent and thus reduced his compensation payments. Therefore, the procedural requirements under 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) apply. The notice accompanying the June 2023 rating decision informed the Veteran of the 60-day period for the submission of evidence and of the right to request a predetermination hearing within 30 days. The Veteran did not request a hearing. An October 3, 2023 rating decision reduced the Veteran's right leg sciatic radiculopathy rating to 0 percent and reduced the Veteran's left leg sciatic radiculopathy to 0 percent, both effective January 1, 2024. As such, the previous 40 percent rating for right leg sciatic radiculopathy and the previous 10 percent for left leg sciatic radiculopathy were in effect for less than five years. The Board finds that VA fully complied with the procedural requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(e) in reducing the Veteran's rating. He was provided notice of the proposed reduction in June 2023 and given the opportunity to respond. The Veteran did not respond or provide additional evidence. He was provided notice of the October 2023 rating decision on appeal in a letter dated October 4, 2023. The reduction did not take effect until January 1, 2024, after the 60-day period lapsed on December 31, 2023. As such, there are no procedural deficiencies in the reductions. In October 2020, the Veteran provided VA with a Back Conditions DBQ showing a diagnosis for bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The straight leg raising test was positive bilaterally. The Veteran had severe constant pain, intermittent pain, dull pain, paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and numbness, all bilaterally. Sensation to light touch testing revealed decreased senses bilaterally in the upper anterior thigh, thigh/knee, lower leg/ankle, and foot/toes. There were no additional findings related to radiculopathy. The examiner indicated the severity of the Veteran's radiculopathy as severe bilaterally and involved the sciatic nerve root bilaterally. The examiner diagnosed radiculopathy and stated the disability affects the Veteran's ability to work. The Veteran endorses worsening symptoms that affect his daily life and limit his ability to do activities such as running, playing sports, and walk for long periods of time. Standing increases the Veteran's back pain and causes tingling in his legs, making it difficult to complete general tasks. He must sit down until the pain subsides. In November 2020, VA completed a peripheral nerves DBQ based on a review of the Veteran's records. The clinician stated that the Veteran does not have peripheral neuropathy due to the lack of evidence supporting such a diagnosis. As such, the examiner marked "no response provided" for each question on the DBQ. The Board notes that the Veteran's 40 percent ratings for right leg and left leg sciatic radiculopathy effective December 5, 2019, are based on the results of the October 2020 DBQ provided by the Veteran. In August 2022, the Veteran submitted the results of an October 2018 lumbar spine MRI. The impression stated the Veteran's spinal cord is unremarkable. There are bilateral pars defects at L5 without listhesis. There is no disk disease, no scoliosis, and no stenosis. The Veteran provided a VA Form 21-4142, Authorization for Release of Information, with his claim in September 2022 authorizing VA to obtain private medical records from Providence Medical Center. VA requested the records multiple times but never received them. The Veteran was notified of the unavailability of the private records in correspondence dated September 15, 2022, October 3, 2022, and October 18, 2022. The Veteran was advised of his right to request an extension to gather the medical records; the Veteran did not request an extension. There are no additional VA or private records concerning the Veteran's bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The Veteran was afforded an in-person VA peripheral nerves examination in September 2022 to evaluate the severity of his left leg sciatic radiculopathy. The Veteran reported the onset of bilateral sciatica in 2001 and stated he has intermittent pain as well as paresthesias and numbness. The Veteran's radicular symptoms are mild intermittent pain, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and moderate numbness, all bilaterally. Muscle strength was normal bilaterally and the reflex examination was normal bilaterally. Sensation testing for light touch was normal bilaterally. The Veteran's gait is normal. The examiner diagnosed mild left leg sciatic radiculopathy and stated the condition does not impact the Veteran's ability to work. In January 2023, the Veteran attended an in-person VA back examination. The straight leg raising test was negative bilaterally. The reflex and sensory examinations were normal bilaterally. The examiner stated the Veteran does not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy. The examiner did not diagnose radiculopathy. In May 2023, VA completed a peripheral nerves DBQ based on a review of the Veteran's records. The clinician diagnosed bilateral lower leg radiculopathy, resolved without residuals. The examiner stated the Veteran does not have any symptoms attributable to any peripheral nerve conditions. Muscle strength testing and the reflect examination were noted as normal. The sensory examination was noted as normal. The Veteran's gait was noted as normal. The examiner noted that the sciatic nerve was normal and that the Veteran's peripheral nerve disabilities does not impact his ability to work. In August 2024, the Veteran's representative submitted an appellate brief that provided the text of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, revision of decisions. The representative raised no other arguments or contentions. The Board finds this boilerplate language to be vague and conclusory and will not address it further. The Board further finds that restoration of the Veteran's 40 percent rating for right leg radiculopathy and 10 percent for left leg radiculopathy is not warranted. A 40 percent rating is warranted for moderately severe incomplete paralysis, and a 10 percent rating is warranted for mild incomplete paralysis. The evidence persuasively weighs against such findings. The September 2022 VA peripheral nerves examination reveals the Veteran's radicular symptoms consist of mild intermittent pain, moderate paresthesias and/or dysesthesias, and moderate numbness, all bilaterally. Muscle strength was normal bilaterally and the reflex examination was normal bilaterally. Sensation testing for light touch was normal bilaterally. The Veteran's gait is normal. Importantly, the examiner stated left leg sciatic radiculopathy does not impact the Veteran's ability to work. The January 2023 VA back examination, which was conducted in-person, reveals the Veteran does not have radicular pain or any other signs or symptoms due to radiculopathy. The straight leg raising test was negative bilaterally. Importantly, the examiner did not diagnose radiculopathy. The May 2023 VA peripheral nerves examination reveals the Veteran's bilateral leg sciatic radiculopathy has resolved without residuals. The examiner stated the Veteran does not have any symptoms attributable to any peripheral nerve conditions. Muscle strength testing and the reflect examination were noted as normal. The sensory examination was noted as normal. The Veteran's gait was noted as normal. The examiner noted that the sciatic nerve was normal and that the Veteran's peripheral nerve disabilities do not impact his ability to work. The evidence shows a clear improvement and the disabilities no longer impact the Veteran's ability to work; by its nature, such improvement reflects an improvement in the Veteran's ability to function under ordinary conditions of life and work. Furthermore, there is no evidence in the record to contradict these findings. For these reasons, the Board finds that restoration of the Veteran's 40 percent rating for right leg sciatic radiculopathy is not warranted, and restoration of the Veteran's 10 percent rating for left leg sciatic radiculopathy is not warranted. Consequently, the Board finds that the reduction from 40 percent to 0 percent for the right leg and the reduction from 10 percent to 0 percent for the left leg, effective January 1, 2024, was proper, and the appeal for restoration of a 40 percent rating for right leg sciatic radiculopathy and for restoration of a 10 percent rating for left leg sciatic radiculopathy is denied. Rebecca N. Poulson Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Gary, 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.