ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION

Summary

The veteran, who served from April 2006 to November 2007, appeals the denial of service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) and urinary incontinence, and seeks an increased rating for his service-connected right lower extremity (RLE) radiculopathy. The Board granted service connection for ED and urinary incontinence, finding that the evidence was in approximate balance and resolving doubt in the veteran's favor, despite unfavorable VA medical opinions that lacked specific rationale. The Board found these opinions had little probative weight and noted that neurological disorders are often associated with spinal injuries, bolstering the veteran's claims. For RLE radiculopathy, the Board granted a 10 percent rating for the period of December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020, finding mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve based on symptoms and imaging, while resolving doubt in the veteran's favor. However, the Board denied higher ratings for this period, citing a lack of evidence for moderate or worse paralysis and the veteran's inconsistent reports and lack of objective findings like muscle atrophy. For the subsequent periods (February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022, and from April 18, 2022, onwards), the Board also denied increased ratings beyond 20 percent and 40 percent respectively, finding the evidence did not support moderately severe or severe incomplete paralysis, respectively, as required by the rating schedule.

Rationale

Evidence in approximate balance; Resolved reasonable doubt in veteran's favor; VA opinions lacked specific rationale and probative weight; Neurological disorders accepted as associated with spinal disorders

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 25014833
Decision Date: 12/11/25	Archive Date: 12/11/25

DOCKET NO. 10-23 995
DATE: December 11, 2025

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for erectile dysfunction (ED) is granted.

Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence is granted.

From December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020, entitlement to an initial 10 percent rating, but no higher, for right lower extremity (RLE) radiculopathy is granted.

From February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022, entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for RLE radiculopathy is denied.

Since April 18, 2022, entitlement to a rating in excess of 40 percent for RLE radiculopathy is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the evidence is in approximate balance as to whether his ED was caused by his service connected back disability.

2. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the evidence is in approximate balance as to whether his urinary incontinence was caused by his service connected back disability.

3. Resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, he has experienced mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve from December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020.

4. From February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022, the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy was manifest by no more than moderate incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.

5. Since April 18, 2022, the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy was manifest by no more than moderately severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for ED have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.310.

3. From December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020, the criteria for an initial 

10 percent rating, but no higher, for RLE radiculopathy have been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code (DC) 8520.

4. From February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022, the criteria for a rating in excess of 20 percent for RLE radiculopathy have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.124a, DC 8520.

5. Since April 18, 2022, the criteria for a rating in excess of 40 percent for RLE radiculopathy have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.10, 4.14, 4.124a, DC 8520.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from April 2006 to November 2007.

Historically, a December 2008 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) that granted service connection for the Veteran's back disability and denied service connection for RLE radiculopathy was appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board).  

The Board remanded the back and RLE radiculopathy issues in an April 2013 decision, and the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy claim was subsequently granted in a May 2017 rating decision.  

The Board then remanded the Veteran's back rating in December 2019 and March 2022 decisions, neither of which addressed the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy rating, presumably given the unappealed grant of service connection in May 2017.
 the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) that granted service connection for the Veteran's back disability and denied service connection for RLE radiculopathy was appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board).  

The Board remanded the back and RLE radiculopathy issues in an April 2013 decision, and the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy claim was subsequently granted in a May 2017 rating decision.  

The Board then remanded the Veteran's back rating in December 2019 and March 2022 decisions, neither of which addressed the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy rating, presumably given the unappealed grant of service connection in May 2017.  Nevertheless, in a March 2023 remand, the Board again remanded the Veteran's back rating, but also took up the issue of entitlement to an increased initial rating for his RLE radiculopathy.  Most recently, in November 2023, the Board adjudicated the Veteran's back rating claim and took up new issues of entitlement to service connection for ED and urinary incontinence under Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 188 (2021); the Board remanded the RLE radiculopathy issue as well as the new service connection claims.  In the November 2023 remand, the Board intimated that while the Veteran was not in receipt of a compensable award for his RLE radiculopathy until July 23, 2012, the issue was service connected at a non-compensable rate since December 1, 2007. 

The Veteran testified before a Decision Review Officer (DRO) and a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at August 2010 and May 2012 hearings, respectively, and transcripts of the hearings are associated with his claims file.  In July 2017, the Veteran was notified that the VLJ who conducted his Board hearing had retired, and he was thus offered the opportunity to appear for another hearing; the Veteran declined the offer the same month.

As a final preliminary matter, in the prior remands the Board instructed the AOJ to obtain updated VA treatment records; to ask the Veteran to identify any outstanding treatment records and to complete the appropriate authorization form to allow VA to obtain any outstanding private medical records; to obtain records from the Social Security Administration (SSA); and to afford the Veteran VA examinations and etiological opinions regarding the issues addressed herein.

Pursuant to the Board's remands, the Veteran was asked to identify any outstanding treatment records and to complete the appropriate authorization form to allow VA to obtain any outstanding private medical records by way of letters dated in December 2015, December 2019, February 2024, and May 2024; the Veteran did not respond to the letters.  The Veteran's SSA records have been obtained and associated with the file, as have updated VA treatment records.  Finally, VA examinations and etiological opinions have been obtained that adequately address the claims, particularly in light of the grants of service connection herein. Therefore, the Board finds that the AOJ has substantially complied with the Board's remand instructions and adjudication is proper at this time.  See Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146- 47 (1999); Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998).

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. 

§ 3.303.  The three-element test for direct service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury.  Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

In order to establish entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis, there must be: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical evidence establishing a nexus (i.e., link) between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, a service-connected condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

1. Entitlement to service connection for ED.

2. Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence.

The Veteran has been diagnosed with ED and urinary in
 establish entitlement to service connection on a secondary basis, there must be: (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) medical evidence establishing a nexus (i.e., link) between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998). Secondary service connection may be granted for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, a service-connected condition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

1. Entitlement to service connection for ED.

2. Entitlement to service connection for urinary incontinence.

The Veteran has been diagnosed with ED and urinary incontinence that he attributes to his service connected back disability.  See July 2024 VA examination reports.

As the first and second elements of the service connection analysis have been satisfied, the remaining question is whether there is a nexus between the Veteran's claimed disorders and his service connected back disability.  On this question there is evidence in favor of and against the claims.

The evidence against the claims includes July and September 2024 VA opinions from the same VA examiner that the Veteran's ED and urinary incontinence were not caused or aggravated by his service connected back disorder.  In support thereof, the examiner merely stated that a nexus had not been established and that the objective research evidence supports that position; the clinician then appears to have pasted information from computer searches.  The opinions contain no analysis specific to the Veteran or his health history and instead include completely irrelevant information such as pregnancy and menopause's impact on urinary continence.  Additionally, the examiner provided no distinct rationales regarding causation or aggravation.  

While the rendered VA opinions are entitled to virtually no probative weight, they do contain some evidence that could be considered favorable to the Veteran's secondary service connection claims.  Specifically, with regards to ED, the examiner included evidence stating that ED can be caused by surgeries to the spinal cord, which the Veteran has undergone for his back disability.  Similarly, one of the listed causes for incontinence is chronic medical conditions (like the Veteran's back disability), medication taken for psychiatric disorders, and peripheral neuropathy.  Notably, the Veteran is also service connected for posttraumatic stress disorder as well as bilateral upper and lower extremity radiculopathy.  Moreover, neurological disorders like ED and urinary incontinence are well-accepted associated disorders with spinal injuries.  38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, General Rating Formula for Disease and Injuries of the Spine, Note 1. 

The Board affords the July and September 2024 VA opinions that the Veteran's ED and incontinence were not caused or aggravated by his service connected back disorders little probative weight.  In this respect, the opinions are not supported by a reasoned rationale specific to the Veteran or his health history.  

Nevertheless, given the length of the appeal period before the Board and in the interests of judicial economy, the Board finds that remand is unnecessary to decide the claim.  Rather, the Board affords some probative weight to the suggestion in the July and September 2024 opinions that the Veteran's ED and urinary incontinence could be linked to his service connected disabilities.  As noted above, such is bolstered by the accepted fact that neurological disorders often accompany spinal disorders like the Veteran's.    

Given the foregoing, the Board will resolve reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor and finds that all elements of service connection have been met.  Therefore, service connection for ED and urinary incontinence is granted.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b).

Increased Rating

3. Entitlement to increased initial ratings for RLE radiculopathy, rated as noncompensable prior to July 23, 2012; 10 percent disabling from July 23, 2012, through February 11, 2020; 20 percent disabling from February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022, and 40 percent disabling thereafter. 

A disability rating is determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 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 their residual conditions in civil occupations.  Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.  VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions.  Schafrath v. Der
A disability rating is determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 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 their residual conditions in civil occupations.  Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1.  VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record, and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions.  Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991).

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 for that rating.  Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned.  38 C.F.R. § 4.7.  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.  However, separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on the facts found.  This practice is known as "staged" ratings.  Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

The Veteran's RLE radiculopathy is rated pursuant to DC 8520.  Under this criteria, mild incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve 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.  38 C.F.R. § 4.124a.

Regulations provide that ratings for peripheral neurological disorders are to be assigned based 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.

The term "incomplete paralysis" indicates a degree of lost or impaired function substantially less than the type of picture for complete paralysis given with each nerve, whether due to varied level of the nerve lesion or to partial regeneration. When the involvement is wholly sensory, the rating is for the mild, or at most, the moderate degree. The disability ratings for the peripheral nerves are for unilateral involvement; when bilateral, the ratings combine with application of the bilateral factor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Note at "Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves." The Note to 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a establishes a maximum disability rating for conditions that are wholly sensory, as opposed to a minimum disability rating for conditions that are more than wholly sensory. See Miller v. Shulkin, 28 Vet. App. 376 (2017).

Neither the Rating Schedule nor the regulations provide definitions for descriptive words such as "mild," "moderate," and "severe." The Board notes that it should consider and discuss relevant provisions from VA's Adjudications Procedures Manual (M21-1) as part of its duty to provide adequate reasons and bases. Overton v. Shinseki, 30 Vet. App. 257, 264 (2018). Here, the M21-1 contains general guidelines for distinguishing between "mild," "moderate," "moderately severe," and "severe" levels of incomplete paralysis of the lower extremities, which the Board will consider. Specifically, the M21-1 provisions reflect that mild incomplete paralysis is generally limited to sensory deficits that are lower graded, less persistent, or affecting a small area, with very minimal reflex or motor abnormality. Moderate is the maximum evaluation reserved for the most significant cases of sensory only impairment. The moderately severe evaluation level is only applicable for involvement of the sciatic nerve, with motor and/or reflex impairment at a grade reflecting a high level of limitation or disability. For the severe level, motor and/or reflex impairment would be expected at a grade reflecting a very high level of limitation or disability.

During the first rating period (December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020), the Board finds that an initial 10 percent rating, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran's R
 is generally limited to sensory deficits that are lower graded, less persistent, or affecting a small area, with very minimal reflex or motor abnormality. Moderate is the maximum evaluation reserved for the most significant cases of sensory only impairment. The moderately severe evaluation level is only applicable for involvement of the sciatic nerve, with motor and/or reflex impairment at a grade reflecting a high level of limitation or disability. For the severe level, motor and/or reflex impairment would be expected at a grade reflecting a very high level of limitation or disability.

During the first rating period (December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020), the Board finds that an initial 10 percent rating, but no higher, is warranted for the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy for the entire period.  In this respect, while the Veteran was not specifically diagnosed with RLE radiculopathy prior to July 2012, the competent evidence supports a finding that the Veteran experienced mild, incomplete paralysis of the right sciatic nerve.  In this regard, treatment records from May 2007 reveal that the Veteran was experiencing bilateral leg pain, numbness, and tingling, though his primary reports related to his left lower extremity (LLE).  Thereafter, the Veteran reported mild bilateral pain in March 2008, and imaging studies from May 2008 revealed foraminal narrowing on the exiting right lumbar four (L4) nerve root.  During a January 2009 VA examination, the Veteran continued to endorse radiating pain down his RLE, though he presented with full strength and negative straight leg raises (SLRs); the clinician endorsed the presence of mild to moderate lumbar radiculopathy, but did not identify which limb was being assessed.  Subsequent treatment records and lay reports (including at the AOJ and Board hearings) continued to reveal reports of radiating back pain with intermittent leg weakness, numbness, and tingling; again, the reports were routinely attributed to the Veteran's LLE, but not always.  

At the time of April 2011 and January 2016 VA examinations, the Veteran reported radiating pain, but had normal sensation to touch, full strength, without atrophy or trophic changes.  The April 2011 examiner only endorsed the presence of LLE radiculopathy, but the April 2016 examiner found the Veteran experienced mild bilateral lower extremity sciatica.

Thus, given the foregoing and resolving all reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Board finds that the Veteran experienced RLE radiculopathy symptoms prior to his formal diagnosis and that an initial 10 percent rating is warranted for the first appeal period due to mild incomplete paralysis of the right sciatic nerve.

The Board finds, however, that a rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted for this period as there is no competent evidence to support a finding that the Veteran experienced worse than mild incomplete paralysis in his right sciatic nerve.  Again, the Board notes that the Veteran's common reports during treatment related to his LLE.  Additionally, upon testing during the January 2009, April 2011, and January 2016 VA examinations, the Veteran did not present with muscle atrophy, nor trophic changes.  Upon testing, he demonstrated (at worst) hypoactive deep tendon reflexes (DTRs) at the April 2011 examination, but was noted to have normal DTRs at the January 2009, and January 2016 examinations with negative SLR testing.  Moreover, the Veteran demonstrated normal lower extremity strength at all three examinations.  Further, the April 2011 examiner did not even diagnose RLE radiculopathy, and the January 2016 examiner endorsed the presence of mild sciatica.  Given the foregoing, the Board finds that the probative evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy was manifested by a combination of significant sensory changes, reflex changes, or motor changes graded as medically moderate as required for a higher 20 percent rating.  Accordingly, the Board finds that the level of impairment is most analogous to mild incomplete paralysis and a 10 percent rating.

Turning to the second period on appeal (February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022), the Board finds that a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted.  In this respect, at the time of a February 2020 VA examination (signed in March 2020), the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy symptoms were noted to include severe constant pain, with moderate paresthesias, and numbness.  He demonstrated, at worst, 4/5 lower extremity strength and hypoactive DTRs, with no evidence of muscle atrophy or trophic changes.  The veteran experienced decreased sensation to touch in his lower limbs, but
 and a 10 percent rating.

Turning to the second period on appeal (February 12, 2020, through April 17, 2022), the Board finds that a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted.  In this respect, at the time of a February 2020 VA examination (signed in March 2020), the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy symptoms were noted to include severe constant pain, with moderate paresthesias, and numbness.  He demonstrated, at worst, 4/5 lower extremity strength and hypoactive DTRs, with no evidence of muscle atrophy or trophic changes.  The veteran experienced decreased sensation to touch in his lower limbs, but not in his upper anterior thigh.  

A review of the Veteran's treatment record did not reveal any additional symptoms not captured by the VA examination.

The Board finds that this evidence of decreased sensation and decreased reflexes is moderate.  The Veteran's symptoms are primarily sensory and do not involve significant loss of muscle strength.  Further, the Veteran's reflexes were only hypoactive at the examination. Moreover, the VA examiner indicated that the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy was moderate.  Accordingly, the Board finds that a rating in excess of 20 percent is not warranted during this period.

Finally, after a careful review of the record, the Board finds that since April 18, 2022, a rating in excess of 40 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's RLE radiculopathy.  In this regard, a VA examination conducted in April 2022 revealed severe RLE pain, paresthesias, and numbness; but 4/5 strength, only hypoactive DTRs, and decreased sensation to touch in the RLE other than in the upper anterior thigh, which had normal sensation to touch.  Notably, there was no evidence of atrophy or trophic changes in the RLE.  The Board finds such symptoms are commensurate with the 40 percent rating for moderately severe incomplete paralysis, which has already been granted.  The Veteran's RLE did not demonstrate marked muscular atrophy, which would be expected given the Board's adopted definition of severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve herein.  Indeed, the examiner endorsed a finding of moderately severe incomplete paralysis after examining the Veteran and applying her medical expertise in analyzing the extent of his nerve paralysis.

As the Veteran has not experienced symptoms commensurate with severe incomplete paralysis of the sciatic nerve in his RLE, the Board finds a higher 60 percent rating is not warranted for the final appeal period.

With respect to all three rating periods, the Board acknowledges the Veteran's reports that he experiences numbness and tingling in his RLE and that he has fallen.  While the Board recognizes that the Veteran is competent to provide statements regarding his observable symptomatology, he is not competent to provide an opinion regarding the severity of his symptomatology in accordance with the rating criteria or to differentiate those symptoms from his separately service-connected right knee disability or LLE disabilities.  Jandreau v. Nicholson,492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Moreover, even after considering such contentions as to the effects of the disability on his daily life, the Board finds the criteria for higher ratings are not met.  The Diseases of the Peripheral Nerves Schedule of ratings contemplates such impairment under the ordinary conditions of daily life. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10.

The Board notes that VA examiners have endorsed the presence of impairment in RLE nerves other than the sciatic nerve.  That said, there is no competent evidence to differentiate the symptomatology attributed to each impaired nerve such that the Board could assign separate ratings without violating the rule against pyramiding outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 4.14.

Moreover, the Board also acknowledges that the Veteran has taken medication to treat his RLE radiculopathy and that the Board may not consider the ameliorative effects of such in denying higher ratings.  Importantly, neither the lay nor medical evidence suggests that the Veteran would experience symptoms analogous to those contemplated by each higher rating, but for his use of medication.  Thus, the Board declines to issue higher ratings based on speculation that such are warranted.

Finally, the Board finds that earlier dates for the staged RLE ratings are not supported by the record.  In this respect, it is not factually ascertainable that the Veteran's RLE increased in severity prior to the currently assigned effective dates of his staged RLE ratings.  Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015); DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 56 (2011).  Here, the Board finds that the earliest
 Veteran would experience symptoms analogous to those contemplated by each higher rating, but for his use of medication.  Thus, the Board declines to issue higher ratings based on speculation that such are warranted.

Finally, the Board finds that earlier dates for the staged RLE ratings are not supported by the record.  In this respect, it is not factually ascertainable that the Veteran's RLE increased in severity prior to the currently assigned effective dates of his staged RLE ratings.  Swain v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 219, 224 (2015); DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 56 (2011).  Here, the Board finds that the earliest factually ascertainable increase in severity warranting higher 20, and 40 percent awards were respectively February 12, 2020, and April 18, 2022 (the date of VA examinations revealed increased symptomatology).

?

In short, the weight of the probative, competent evidence supports the award of 10 percent rating, but no higher, from December 1, 2007, through February 11, 2020; to this extent only, the appeal is granted.  The evidence otherwise weighs against the assignment of higher or separate ratings, and the appeal is otherwise denied.  38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

 

 

Nathaniel Doan

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	K. Sosna, 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.