Back to BVA DecisionsMIXEDSpecial Benefit NO SPECIAL BENEFIT Docket No. 210315-146088
Case A26030353
T. BERRY · 2026 · Case ID: A26030353
Summary
The veteran, who served from February 1977 to March 1980, appeals the denial of an earlier effective date for service connection for a right index finger scar and unspecified anxiety disorder (UDD), and the denial of an increased rating for UDD. The Board found that the date of claim for both conditions was December 7, 2009, as there was no prior pending claim and no claim filed within one year of separation from service. The Board also found that the date entitlement arose for both conditions was December 7, 2009, as this was the date of receipt of the Veteran's initial claim, and subsequent evidence did not establish entitlement to an earlier effective date. Regarding the UDD rating, the Board reviewed the Veteran's medical history and lay statements, noting symptoms consistent with a 30 percent rating, such as depressed mood, anxiety, mild memory loss, and chronic sleep impairment. While the Veteran also reported symptoms like tearfulness, irritability, and difficulty with concentration, the Board concluded these did not meet the criteria for a 50 percent rating. The Board found the Veteran's symptoms more closely approximated the 30 percent rating criteria, citing his ability to maintain employment and social relationships. The claim for an increased rating for UDD was denied. However, the claim for an initial compensable rating for the right index finger scar was remanded due to a duty to assist error, as no examination was conducted to describe the scar's characteristics after service connection was granted.
Rationale
Duty to assist error occurred prior to June 2020 decision; No examination conducted to describe scar characteristics; Remanded for retrospective findings on scar area, soft tissue damage, instability, or pain
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26030353 Decision Date: 04/02/26 Archive Date: 04/02/26 DOCKET NO. 210315-146088 DATE: April 2, 2026 ORDER An effective date prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for scar residual status post laceration right index finger (right index finger scar), is denied. An effective date prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for unspecified anxiety disorder with anxious distress (UDD), is denied. An initial rating in excess of 30 percent for UDD is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right index finger scar is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The date of claim for service connection for right index finger scar is December 7, 2009; and a there was no prior pending unadjudicated claim for service connection for right index finger scar and the claim was not filed within one year of separation from active duty. 2. The date of claim for service connection for UDD is December 7, 2009; and a there was no prior pending unadjudicated claim for service connection for UDD and the claim was not filed within one year of separation from active duty. 3. The severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's UDD symptoms did not more closely approximate occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for assignment of an effective date prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for right index finger scar are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400, 3.2500. 2. The criteria for assignment of an effective date prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for UDD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.400, 3.2500. 3. The criteria for a rating in excess of 30 percent for UDD are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code (DC) 9435. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from February 1977 to March 1980. The rating decisions on appeal were issued in June 2020 and January 2021; therefore, the modernized review system, also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. The AMA automatically applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after February 19, 2019. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2400(a)(1). In the March 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A November 2024 notification advised the Veteran that a hearing was scheduled for January 28, 2025. The Veteran did not appear for the scheduled Board hearing. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the June 2020 (right index finger scar) and January 2021 (UDD) agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decisions on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran within 90 days following the date of the scheduled hearing. 38?C.F.R. §?20.302(c). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date of the scheduled Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the date of the scheduled hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(c), 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. However, because the Board is remanding the claim of entitlement to an Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(c), 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. However, because the Board is remanding the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right index finger scar, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of those claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). Effective Dates Generally, the effective date of an award of disability compensation based on an original claim shall be the date of receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Unless otherwise provided, the effective date of compensation will be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but will not be earlier than the date of receipt of the claimant's application. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a). If a claim is filed within one year after separation from service, service connection will be effective as of the day after separation. 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2). Prior to March 24, 2015, a claim was "a formal or informal communication in writing requesting a determination of entitlement, or evidencing a belief in entitlement, to a benefit." 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(p). An informal claim is "[a]ny communication or action indicating intent to apply for one or more benefits." 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(a). VA must look to all communications from a claimant that may be interpreted as applications or claims - formal and informal - for benefits and is required to identify and act on informal claims for benefits. Servello v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 196, 198 (1992). The essential elements for any claim, whether formal or informal, are: (1) an intent to apply for benefits; (2) an identification of the benefits sought; and (3) a communication in writing. Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009); MacPhee v. Nicholson, 459 F.3d 1323, 1326-27 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (holding that the plain language of the regulations requires a claimant to have intent to file a claim for VA benefits). For claims or appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015, a claim for benefits must be submitted on a standardized form. Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015). Claims or appeals pending before VA on that date are to be decided based on the regulations as they existed prior to the amendment. Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686. With regard to the date of entitlement, the term date entitlement arose is the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought, on a facts found basis. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000). These facts found include the date the disability first manifested and the date entitlement to benefits was authorized by law and regulation. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. For instance, if a claimant filed a claim for benefits for a disability before he actually had the disability, the effective date for benefits can be no earlier than the date the disability first manifested. Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, the date entitlement arose is not the date that the RO receives the evidence, but the date to which that evidence refers. McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35. Additionally, under the AMA, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date of receipt of the initial claim or date entitlement arose C.F.R. § 3.400. For instance, if a claimant filed a claim for benefits for a disability before he actually had the disability, the effective date for benefits can be no earlier than the date the disability first manifested. Ellington v. Peake, 541 F.3d 1364, 1369-70 (Fed. Cir. 2008). However, the date entitlement arose is not the date that the RO receives the evidence, but the date to which that evidence refers. McGrath, 14 Vet. App. at 35. Additionally, under the AMA, the effective date will be fixed in accordance with the date of receipt of the initial claim or date entitlement arose, whichever is later, if a claimant continuously pursues an issue by timely filing in succession any of the available review options within one year of the issuance of the decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(h). Continuously pursuing a claim occurs where, after notice of a decision on an initial or supplemental claim, the Veteran files a supplemental claim, requests a higher-level review, or appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals, or after notice of a decision on a higher-level review, the Veteran files a supplemental claim or appeals to the Board of Veterans' Appeals. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c). Finally, an intent to file a claim may be filed by a veteran and if a complete application form is received within one year, VA will consider the complete claim filed as of the date the intent to file a claim was received. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(b). 1. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for right index finger scar. 2. Entitlement to an effective date prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for UDD. A June 2020 rating decision granted service connection for right index finger scar and a January 2021 rating decision granted service connection for UDD, effective December 7, 2009, the date of receipt of the Veteran's original claim. This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the assigned effective date. See Rating Decision (June 2020, January 2021); VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement (March 2021). The Board concludes that the criteria for effective dates prior to December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for right index finger scar and UDD are not met. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.400, 3.2500. First, the Board finds that the date of claim for service connection for right index finger scar and UDD is December 7, 2009. The record reflects that, from the date of the Veteran's service discharge in March 1980 to December 7, 2009, there are no unadjudicated formal or informal claims for service connection for right index finger scar or UDD. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(p); 3.155(a); Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009). Additionally, prior to December 7, 2009, no claim for service connection for right index finger scar or UDD was submitted on a VA standardized form. See Standard Claims and Appeals Forms, 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014) (eff. Mar. 24, 2015). The record shows that the Veteran's VA Form 21-526EZ claim for compensation for "finger" (right index finger scar) was received on April December 7, 2009. See VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (December 2009). On March 30, 2010, VA received a statement from the Veteran and his representative seeking service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (March 2010); Third Party Correspondence (March 2010). An October 2010 rating decision denied the claims. See Rating Decision (October 2010). The Veteran appealed the denial to the Board. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (NOD) (February 2011); SOC (October 2014); Form 9 (October 2014); BVA Decision (December 2019). The December 2019 Board decision granted entitlement to service connection for right index finger scar, and a June 202 and his representative seeking service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (March 2010); Third Party Correspondence (March 2010). An October 2010 rating decision denied the claims. See Rating Decision (October 2010). The Veteran appealed the denial to the Board. See VA 21-4138 Statement In Support of Claim (NOD) (February 2011); SOC (October 2014); Form 9 (October 2014); BVA Decision (December 2019). The December 2019 Board decision granted entitlement to service connection for right index finger scar, and a June 2020 rating decision effectuated the grant assigning December 7, 2009, as the effective date - date of receipt of his initial claim. The Board also remanded the Veteran's claim for service connection for PTSD and depression; a January 2021 granted entitlement to service connection for UDD, effective December 7, 2009 - date of receipt of his initial claim. There was continuous prosecution from the date of the December 7, 2009, claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500(c). Thus, there is no date other than December 7, 2009, that may be accepted as the date of claim for right index finger scar and/or UDD. Second, and resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the date of entitlement postdates the Veteran's December 7, 2009 claim. Here, the Veteran met the requirements for the benefits sought - service connection for right index fingers scar and UDD - on a facts found basis with diagnosis of depression shown in a September 28, 2005, VA treatment records and diagnosis of barely visible right index finger scar distal to PIP joint on September 28, 2010, at the time of VA-obtained medical examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000). These facts found include the date the disability first manifested and the date entitlement to benefits was authorized by law and regulation. See generally 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Notably, September 28, 2005, is the first date of diagnosis of depression, and September 28, 2010, is the first date of diagnosis of right index finger scar contained in the medical records. See Medical Treatment Record - Government Facility at 15 (July 2010); VA Examination (September 2010). A November 2018 private orthopedic evaluation report reflects that that the Veteran's right index finger resulted from a documented in-service puncture wound to the right index finger, thus establishing nexus; and a December 2020 VA-obtained medical opinion reflects that the Veteran's UDD was due to an in-service incident of plane crash. See Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility at 11 (October 2019); C&P Exam at 2 (December 2020). This is the date that the criteria for service connection were met. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Given the above, the Board finds no basis upon which to assign an effective date earlier than December 7, 2009, for the grant of service connection for right index finger scar or UDD. In this regard, VA did not receive a claim within 1 year after separation from service and there is no communication prior to December 7, 2009, that could be reasonably be construed as a claim of entitlement to disability benefits for a sinus right index finger scar or an acquired psychiatric disability-there is no argument otherwise. Further, VA is not required to anticipate any potential claim for a particular benefit where no intention to raise it was expressed and the mere presence of medical evidence that a veteran suffers from a disability does not establish intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection for that disability. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998); see also Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 86-87 (2009). Thus, although the Board accepts that the Veteran had right index finger scar and UDD prior to the date of receipt of his claim on December 7, 2009, the law dictates that the effective date of service connection is the date of the receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See the mere presence of medical evidence that a veteran suffers from a disability does not establish intent on the part of the veteran to seek service connection for that disability. See Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998); see also Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 86-87 (2009). Thus, although the Board accepts that the Veteran had right index finger scar and UDD prior to the date of receipt of his claim on December 7, 2009, the law dictates that the effective date of service connection is the date of the receipt of the claim or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400. Therefore, the effective date for the grant of service connection is appropriately December 7, 2009. There is no legal basis for the assignment of an earlier effective date. Accordingly, the claims are denied. There is no doubt to resolve. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021). Evaluations Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Schedule), found in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The Schedule is primarily a guide in the evaluation of disability resulting from all types of diseases and injuries encountered as a result of or incident to military service. The ratings are intended to compensate, as far as can practicably be determined, the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from such diseases and injuries and their residual conditions in civilian occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 ; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7. When reasonable doubt arises as to the degree of disability, such doubt will be resolved in the veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. In considering the severity of a disability, it is essential to trace the medical history of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.41. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of any disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). Although the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over current findings, the Board is to consider the veteran's medical history in determining the applicability of a higher rating for the entire period in which the appeal has been pending. Powell v. West, 13 Vet. App. 31, 34 (1999). Where entitlement to compensation has been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). Where an appeal is based on an initial rating for a disability, however, evidence contemporaneous with the claim and the initial rating decision are most probative of the degree of disability existing when the initial rating was assigned and should be the evidence "used to decide whether an original rating on appeal was erroneous." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126 (1999). In either case, if later evidence indicates that the degree of disability increased or decreased following the assignment of the initial rating, staged ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time. Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126; Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007) (noting that staged ratings are appropriate whenever the factual findings show distinct time periods in which a disability exhibits symptoms that warrant different ratings). When adjudicating an increased rating claim, the relevant time period for consideration is the time period one year before the claim was filed. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 509. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for UDD. A January 2021 rating decision granted service connection for UDD and assigned a 30 percent rating from December 7, 2009. This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the initial rating assigned for UDD. See VA Form 10182 (March 2021). The Veteran has not advanced any specific contentions. The issue in this appeal is whether the show distinct time periods in which a disability exhibits symptoms that warrant different ratings). When adjudicating an increased rating claim, the relevant time period for consideration is the time period one year before the claim was filed. Hart, 21 Vet. App. at 509. 3. Entitlement to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for UDD. A January 2021 rating decision granted service connection for UDD and assigned a 30 percent rating from December 7, 2009. This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the initial rating assigned for UDD. See VA Form 10182 (March 2021). The Veteran has not advanced any specific contentions. The issue in this appeal is whether the Veteran's associated symptoms caused the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 50 percent or higher. Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula), the Board must conduct a "holistic analysis" that considers all associated symptoms, regardless of whether they are listed as criteria. Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 22 (2017); 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. The Board must determine whether unlisted symptoms are similar in severity, frequency, and duration to the listed symptoms associated with specific disability percentages. Then, the Board must determine whether the associated symptoms, both listed and unlisted, caused the level of impairment required for a higher disability rating. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 114-118 (Fed. Cir. 2013). UDD has been rated under the General Formula for Mental Disorders. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9435. It provides as follows: A noncompensable rating is assigned when a mental condition has been formally diagnosed, but symptoms are not severe enough to either require continuous medication, or to interfere with occupational and social functioning. A 10 percent rating is assigned when mild or transient symptoms which decrease work efficiency and ability to perform occupational tasks only during periods of occasional stress, or symptoms controlled by medication cause occupational and social impairment. A 30 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, or mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, or recent events), cause occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactorily, with routine behavior, self-care, and normal conversation). A 50 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships cause occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. A 70 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a worklike setting); or inability to establish and maintain effective relationships cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood. A 100 percent rating is assigned when symptoms such as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; or memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation or own name cause total occupational and social impairment. VA treatment records, including group and individual therapy notes, the September 2010 and December 2020 VA examinations, and the Veteran's lay statements show that the Veteran's UDD was manifested by symptoms associated with a 30 percent rating (e.g., anxiety, depressed mood, mild memory loss and chronic sleep impairment). He also had a symptom of disturbances of motivation and mood associated with a 50 percent rating. Additionally, he had symptoms that are not listed with a specific rating, such as tearfulness, irritability, difficulty with concentration, bouts of sadness, withdrawing from others, decreased interest in activities and anxious distress about his life. During the rating review period, the Board concludes that the Veteran's symptoms did not cause the level of impairment required for a disability rating of and individual therapy notes, the September 2010 and December 2020 VA examinations, and the Veteran's lay statements show that the Veteran's UDD was manifested by symptoms associated with a 30 percent rating (e.g., anxiety, depressed mood, mild memory loss and chronic sleep impairment). He also had a symptom of disturbances of motivation and mood associated with a 50 percent rating. Additionally, he had symptoms that are not listed with a specific rating, such as tearfulness, irritability, difficulty with concentration, bouts of sadness, withdrawing from others, decreased interest in activities and anxious distress about his life. During the rating review period, the Board concludes that the Veteran's symptoms did not cause the level of impairment required for a disability rating of 50 percent or higher. His symptoms more closely approximated the symptoms associated with a 30 percent rating and resulted in a level of impairment that most closely approximated the level of impairment associated with a 30 percent rating. Specifically, the Board finds the severity, frequency, and duration of the Veteran's unlisted symptoms more closely approximate the symptoms contemplated by a 30 percent rating, which are less severe, less frequent, and shorter in duration than those contemplated by a 50 percent or higher rating. His symptoms of tearfulness, irritability, difficulty with concentration, bouts of sadness, withdrawing from others, decreased interest in activities and anxious distress about his life are similar to depressed mood, anxiety, and suspiciousness, which are contemplated by the assigned 30 percent rating. The Board finds the level of impairment caused by the Veteran's symptoms more closely approximates the level associated with his currently assigned 30 percent rating. The Veteran at his September 2010 VA examination was not assessed with a mental health condition and at the December 2020 VA examination was assessed with a mental condition that resulted in occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. The record shows he arrived on time to his appointments; he was fully oriented; he was pleasant, friendly, relaxed and cooperative; he presented as coherent and logical with adequate receptive and expressive language skills; and appeared open and engaged. At his September 2010 VA examination, his attitude was identified with frequent smiles and good mood; he had no delusions or inappropriate behavior; he had no obsessive or ritualistic behavior; and he had no homicidal or suicidal ideation. A September 2010 VA examination reflects the Veteran's reports of some depressed mood and low energy found not to meet criteria for a mental disorder and to be mild and sporadic of unknown duration. See VA Examination at 8 (September 2010). He reported mental health treatment since November 2006. A December 2020 VA examination shows a diagnosis of UDD, resulting in occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. See C&P Exam (December 2020). The Veteran's symptoms included anxiety, depressed mood, mild memory loss, disturbances of motivation and mood and chronic sleep impairment. At that time, the Veteran reported depressed mood lasting from a couple of days to a week, tearfulness, irritability and bouts of sadness. He also reported withdrawing from others, sleep issues and difficulty with concentration. He was fully orientated, cooperative, pleasant, and appropriately dressed. He presented as coherent and logical with adequate receptive and expressive language skills. By history, during both VA examinations, the Veteran reported that he was never married and had no children. He lived by himself, and his social network consisted of his siblings and a few friends. He worked full-time, including as a caretaker for a community center in December 2020, where he had worked since 2012; he reported no work related issues. He reported desire to do activities he enjoys. VA treatment records show regular ongoing mental health treatment, including individual and group therapy sessions, including for Substance Abuse Rehabilitation Program (SARP). In January 2011, the Veteran reported fleeting suicide ideations; however, it was noted that no mental health condition requiring further intervention was indicated. See CAPR at 91 (October 2014). Moreover, treatment records reflect that the Veteran used alcohol to deal with his depression in 2011. See e.g. id. at 62. His mood was identified as "ok" in a January 2012 VA treatment note. See id. at 32. The Veteran managed his symptoms with Zoloft, including for "nightmares" that recurred. Id. at 7. In May 2015, he sought mental health treatment for exacerbation of his depression due to alcohol use disorder; he was found to be psychiatrically stable. See CAPRI at 760 (June ; however, it was noted that no mental health condition requiring further intervention was indicated. See CAPR at 91 (October 2014). Moreover, treatment records reflect that the Veteran used alcohol to deal with his depression in 2011. See e.g. id. at 62. His mood was identified as "ok" in a January 2012 VA treatment note. See id. at 32. The Veteran managed his symptoms with Zoloft, including for "nightmares" that recurred. Id. at 7. In May 2015, he sought mental health treatment for exacerbation of his depression due to alcohol use disorder; he was found to be psychiatrically stable. See CAPRI at 760 (June 2020). Also in May 2015, VA mental health treatment notes show that the Veteran was stopped for driving under influence, at which time he informed the police that he was going to hang himself; however, upon his discharge from hospital, he denied suicidal or homicidal ideation or any history of present or past suicide attempts, threats or gestures; he also denied access to weapons. Thereafter, he participated in regular SARP sessions as well as continuing with his individual therapy sessions, which have continuously shown denials of suicidal ideation, intent, plan or thought, and he was assessed with low risk. He reported getting the necessary medical treatment. Id. at 654. He denied feelings of hopelessness, helplessness, worthlessness, as well as any suicidal or homicidal ideations, auditory or visual hallucinations, and paranoia. His insight and judgment were characterized as fair and intact. Id. at 577. He traveled to see his family in Florida in 2016 and maintained hobbies including attending church, fishing and talking to his seven sisters. An October 2019 VA treatment note reflects that he continued his routine job of opening the community center and maintaining its good shape; however, irritability and depressed mood were found to impact his interest level. The available medical and lay evidence overall does not demonstrate the level of impairment associated with a 50 percent rating. As noted above, the Veteran's reported symptoms were either contemplated by or more consistent with a 30 percent rating. The Board also finds that the overall level of impairment caused by the Veteran's symptoms more closely approximates the 30 percent rating. Mental status evaluations in September 2010 and December 2020 indicate the Veteran was cooperative, was appropriately dressed, had normal speech, had good hygiene, had normal attention and fair judgment. His orientation was intact, insight, speech and thoughts were within normal limits. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's chronic sleep impairment, anxiety and depression-and in no way diminishes their presence or impact. However, these symptoms are fully contemplated by the currently assigned 30 percent rating as discussed above and are not shown by either the lay or medical evidence to more nearly reflect the criteria for a 50 percent or higher disability rating. Moreover, Veteran's of tearfulness, irritability, difficulty with concentration, bouts of sadness, withdrawing from others, decreased interest in activities and anxious distress about his life are similar to depressed mood, anxiety, and suspiciousness, which are contemplated by the 30 percent rating. His occasional nightmares are similar to chronic sleep impairment, also contemplated by the 30 percent rating. The Veteran's VA examinations in September 2010 and December 2020 show that he has continuously and expressly denied suicidal ideation, including intent or plan. His mood was good and depressed at the time of the September 2010 and December 2020 VA examinations; throughout treatment he appeared insightful, aware of his illness and expressed desire/motivation for change. He has continued to travel and spend time with his sisters, and his hobbies included church and fishing. Importantly, he has continuously sought mental health treatment, which reflects that he has good control of his symptoms. The Board acknowledges the Veteran's reports of periodic nightmares, depression, anxiety and sleep disturbance. However, these symptoms are fully contemplated by the currently assigned 30 percent rating, as explained above, and are not shown by either the lay or medical evidence to more nearly reflect the criteria for a 50 percent or higher disability rating. As to his symptoms of seeing shadowy people (hallucinations) and disturbances of motivation and mood, the Board finds that there is no indication that there have been periods of persistent hallucinations, as the mental health treatment records show few instances of such during regular treatment from 2010 to 2020. Moreover, disturbances of motivation and mood identified at the December 2020 VA examination are not otherwise reflected during the Veteran's regular mental health treatment, where he appeared to be motivated for treatment and motivated to continue working. As such, these symptoms appear analogous to depression, anxiety and suspiciousness and, here are not shown to be of the severity, frequency, or duration as to support a higher rating higher than the current or higher disability rating. As to his symptoms of seeing shadowy people (hallucinations) and disturbances of motivation and mood, the Board finds that there is no indication that there have been periods of persistent hallucinations, as the mental health treatment records show few instances of such during regular treatment from 2010 to 2020. Moreover, disturbances of motivation and mood identified at the December 2020 VA examination are not otherwise reflected during the Veteran's regular mental health treatment, where he appeared to be motivated for treatment and motivated to continue working. As such, these symptoms appear analogous to depression, anxiety and suspiciousness and, here are not shown to be of the severity, frequency, or duration as to support a higher rating higher than the current 50 percent rating assigned. Simply stated, the evidence overall does not demonstrate the level of impairment associated with a 30 percent rating. Neither the lay nor the medical evidence supports finding that the Veteran's symptoms of UDD have impacted his ability to function independently and appropriately and effectively. Although the record indicates that the Veteran has expressed passive suicidal ideation in 2015, this symptom is not of the frequency, severity, or duration to support a higher rating. VA treatment records and VA examinations in September 2010 and December 2020 reflect findings of no suicidal ideation, and the Veteran has continuously denied any suicidal ideation during the rating review period spanning more than a decade. The lay and medical evidence does not reflect that this symptom resulted in reduced reliability and productivity. Rather, the record, for the most part, reflects that the Veteran maintains relationships, including with his seven sisters and hobbies. The Veteran reported that he maintained employment since 2012, and there is no indication in the lay or medical evidence that his mental disorders impaired his ability to perform his job. Both the lay and medical evidence are probative in this matter. However, whether a disability meets the schedular criteria for the assignment of a higher rating is a factual determination by the Board based on the complaints coupled with the medical evidence. Here, although the Veteran believes that he meets the criteria for higher disability rating, his complaints and the medical findings do not meet the schedular requirements for a higher rating than assigned, as explained and discussed above. In summary, the severity, frequency, and/or duration of symptoms, individually or collectively, shown by the record do not more nearly reflect the type contemplated by the schedular criteria for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for unspecified anxiety disorder. Indeed, a holistic review of the lay and medical evidence does not reveal a disability picture that approaches the severity, frequency, or duration of symptoms contemplated by the 50 percent or higher schedular criteria. He appeared to retain a level of functioning in his day-to-day life, with self-care, independent living, social interactions, interests, travel, hobbies and staying busy with various tasks. REASONS FOR REMAND 4. Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for right index finger scar is remanded. A June 2020 rating decision granted service connection for a right index finger scar, and assigned a noncompensable disability rating, effective December 7, 2009, under Diagnostic Code 7804. See Rating Decision (June 2020). This appeal arises from the Veteran's disagreement with the initial rating assigned. See VA Form 10182 (March 2021). The issue of entitlement to an initial compensable rating for a right index finger scar is remanded to correct a duty to assist error that occurred prior to the June 2020 decision on appeal. As above, the AOJ granted entitlement to service connection for right index finger scar pursuant to a December 2019 Board decision granted entitlement to service connection. However, no examination was conducted to identify the characteristics of the Veteran's right index finger scar as the award of service connection was based on a November 2018 private medical evaluation that suggests the presence of right index finger scar without detailing any of its characteristics. No examination has been conducted to adequately described the Veteran's right index finger scar. Accordingly, remand is necessary to correct this duty to assist error on the part of the originating agency in satisfying its duties under 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, which occurred prior to the June 2020 rating decision on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to obtain retrospective findings for the period from December 7, 2009, to June 30, 2020, as to the Veteran's right index finger scars that: (a.) Identify the measured area affected by the Veteran's right index finger scar and note (1) whether there is underlying soft tissue damage, and (2) whether scar is unstable or painful. T. Berry Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, which occurred prior to the June 2020 rating decision on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to obtain retrospective findings for the period from December 7, 2009, to June 30, 2020, as to the Veteran's right index finger scars that: (a.) Identify the measured area affected by the Veteran's right index finger scar and note (1) whether there is underlying soft tissue damage, and (2) whether scar is unstable or painful. T. Berry Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. M. Pesin, 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.