ASTHMA

S. CHARLES NEILL · 2026 · Case ID: A26038966

MIXED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Air Force from January 1976 to January 1980, appeals the denial of increased ratings for asthma, back condition, and allergic rhinitis, as well as the denial of a higher rating for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). The Board reviewed the evidence, including multiple VA examinations and private opinions, in conjunction with the relevant rating criteria. For asthma, the Board found the veteran's symptoms did not meet the criteria for a higher rating, noting the absence of monthly physician visits for exacerbations or systemic corticosteroid use, and PFT results that did not meet the threshold for higher evaluations. For the back condition, the Board found the veteran's range of motion and absence of ankylosis did not meet the criteria for a rating higher than the current 20 percent. For allergic rhinitis, the Board found the evidence did not demonstrate nasal polyps or the required level of nasal passage obstruction to warrant a compensable rating. However, regarding MDD, the Board considered a private provider's opinion noting suicidal ideation and found that this symptom, along with other deficiencies, met the criteria for a 70 percent rating, granting the increased rating. The Board denied the other claims, finding the evidence persuasively weighed against them and the benefit of the doubt doctrine inapplicable.

Rationale

Did not meet criteria for higher rating (60% or more); No monthly physician visits for exacerbations; No systemic corticosteroid use; PFT results did not meet threshold

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

210802-176452

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26038966
Decision Date: 04/27/26 Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 210802-176452
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

1. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 30 percent for asthma is denied.

2. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for degenerative disc/joint disease, thoracolumbar spine, (back condition) is denied.

3. Entitlement to a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis is denied.

4. Entitlement to an increased rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for major depressive disorder (MDD) is granted.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. Throughout the period on review, the Veteran's asthma did not require monthly visits to a physician for required care of exacerbations or any course of systemic corticosteroids. The Veteran also did not demonstrate pulmonary function test results of FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC of 40 to 55 percent.

2. Throughout the period on review the Veteran's back condition did not manifest with forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine measured at 30 degrees or less, and it did not manifest in favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine.

3. Throughout the period on review, the Veteran's allergic rhinitis was not shown to manifest with nasal polyps, did not have nasal polyps and did not have greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides, and did not have complete obstruction on one side.

4. Throughout the period on review the Veteran's MDD most closely approximated occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. The evidence of record for the period on review does not support a finding that the Veteran's symptoms manifested in total occupational and social impairment.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 30 percent for asthma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 4.1-4.7, 4.10, 4.21, 4.96, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6602.

2. The criteria for a disability rating in excess of 20 percent for a back condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.40, 4.45, 4.59, 4.71a, Diagnostic Code 5242.

3. The criteria for a compensable disability rating for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522.

4. The criteria for a disability rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for MDD have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.3, 4.7, 4.126, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9434.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 1976 to January 1980.

This matter has a long procedural history, and comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2021 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The matter was previously before the Board which resulted in a June 2021 Remand. The Board finds there has been substantial compliance with the June 2021 Board Remand directives. Stegall v. West, 22 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Thus, the Board may proceed with adjudication of the claims on the merits.

In the August 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on July 23, 2024, with the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, and a hearing transcript has been added to the record.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at
Remand directives. Stegall v. West, 22 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Thus, the Board may proceed with adjudication of the claims on the merits.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran or his representative at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 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.

Increased Ratings

Disability ratings are determined by application of a ratings schedule which is based, as far as can practically be determined, on the average impairment of earning capacity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Each service-connected disability is rated on the basis of specific criteria identified by Diagnostic Codes. 38 C.F.R. § 4.27. The degrees of disability specified are considered adequate to compensate for a loss of working time proportionate to the severity of the disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Disabilities must be reviewed in relation to their history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. Where an increase in the level of a service-connected disability is at issue, the primary concern is the present level of disability. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55 (1994).

If two evaluations are potentially applicable, the higher evaluation 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. Any reasonable doubt regarding a degree of disability will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. However, pyramiding, that is the evaluation of the same disability, or the same manifestation of a disability, under different diagnostic codes, is to be avoided when evaluating a Veteran's service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14; see Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994).

In every instance where the schedule does not provide a zero percent evaluation for a DC, a zero percent evaluation shall be assigned when the requirements for a compensable evaluation are not met. 38 C.F.R. § 4.31.

VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence persuasively favors one side or another. 38?C.F.R. § 4.3. When there is an approximate or nearly equal balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the Veteran and the claim will be granted on the merits. 38?U.S.C. §?5107(b). When the evidence persuasively favors against the claim of the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable and the claim will be denied on its merits. 38?U.S.C. §?5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

1. Increased rating for asthma.

Specific Legal Criteria

The Veteran's asthma has been rated at 30 percent pursuant to Diagnostic Code (DC) 6602. Under DC 6602, a total disability rating (100 percent) is warranted for FEV-1 less than 40-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC less than 40 percent, or; more than one attack per week with
the Veteran, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable and the claim will be denied on its merits. 38?U.S.C. §?5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc).

1. Increased rating for asthma.

Specific Legal Criteria

The Veteran's asthma has been rated at 30 percent pursuant to Diagnostic Code (DC) 6602. Under DC 6602, a total disability rating (100 percent) is warranted for FEV-1 less than 40-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC less than 40 percent, or; more than one attack per week with episodes of respiratory failure, or; requires daily use of systemic (oral or parenteral) high dose corticosteroids or immuno-suppressive medications.

A 60 percent evaluation is warranted for FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 40 to 55 percent, or at least monthly visits to a physician for required care of exacerbations, or; intermittent (at least three per year) courses of systemic (oral or parenteral) corticosteroids. A 30 percent evaluation is warranted for FEV-1 of 56- to 70-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 56 to 70 percent, or; daily inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy, or; inhalational anti-inflammatory medication and a 10 percent evaluation is warranted for FEV-1 of 71- to 80-percent predicted, or; FEV-1/FVC of 71 to 80 percent, or intermittent inhalational or oral bronchodilator therapy.

Pulmonary function testing (PFT) results are generally reported before and after the administration of bronchodilator therapy. VA regulations instruct that post-bronchodilator results be used when considering PFT criteria for ratings under DCs 6600, 6603, 6604, 6825-6833, and 6840-6845. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(4). There are no regulations identifying whether pre- or post-bronchodilator results should be used when determining disability ratings under DC 6602. As 38 C.F.R. § 4.96(d)(4) omits DC 6602, the Board will use the PFT results that allow the most favorable disability rating to the Veteran.

Factual Background and Analysis

The Veteran argues that his asthma symptoms have worsened and he is entitled to a higher rating.

He received a VA examination in April 2021. The Veteran reported using a Proair Inhaler and Fluticasone Inhaler daily. The VA examiner documented that the Veteran's condition did not require the use of oral or parenteral corticosteroid medications, and the Veteran had not had any physician visits for required care of exacerbations. PFT was not conducted due to the COVID 19 Pandemic.

The Veteran received another VA examination in May 2018. The Veteran reported current medications of Albuterol, Fluticasone, Mometasone, and Montelukast which are used daily. The VA examiner documented that the Veteran's condition required the use of oral or parenteral corticosteroids in the form of Fluticasone INH, however, this was not identified as a systemic corticosteroid.

The examiner documented that the Veteran had not had any physician visits for required care of exacerbations. The Veteran also performed a PFT in conjunction with the May 2018 VA examination. The relevant pre-bronchodilator results were FEV-1 of 82 percent and FEV-1/FVC of 67 percent, and post-bronchodilator results were FEV-1 of 89 percent, FEV-1/FVC of 66 percent.

The Veteran received an additional VA examination in December 2016. The Veteran reported using inhalational bronchodilator therapy (Albuterol) intermittently. The VA examiner documented that the Veteran's asthma had not required any physician visits for required care of exacerbations. The corresponding December 2016 PFT resulted in pre-bronchodilator FEV-1 of 76 percent and FEV-1/FVC of 92 percent, and post-bronchodilator FEV-1 of 85 percent and FEV-1/FVC of 94 percent.

At the July 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified, generally, that over the years he has seen a doctor a couple of times per year because his asthma was acting up or getting worse.

Applying
Veteran reported using inhalational bronchodilator therapy (Albuterol) intermittently. The VA examiner documented that the Veteran's asthma had not required any physician visits for required care of exacerbations. The corresponding December 2016 PFT resulted in pre-bronchodilator FEV-1 of 76 percent and FEV-1/FVC of 92 percent, and post-bronchodilator FEV-1 of 85 percent and FEV-1/FVC of 94 percent.

At the July 2024 Board hearing, the Veteran testified, generally, that over the years he has seen a doctor a couple of times per year because his asthma was acting up or getting worse.

Applying these results to the rating criteria, the Veteran's asthma did not require monthly visits to a physician for required care of exacerbations and did not require any course of systemic corticosteroids. The Veteran also did not demonstrate PFT results of FEV-1 of 40- to 55-percent predicted, or FEV-1/FVC of 40 to 55 percent. Thus, a rating of 60 percent or higher for the Veteran's asthma is not warranted.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contentions that his asthma condition has worsened and required more medications. See January 2021 Board Hearing, July 2024 Board Hearing. However, the Board is limited by federal regulations for the award of increased disability ratings.

For the reasons set forth above, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable. Accordingly, the appeal must be denied.

2. Increased rating for back condition.

Specific Legal Criteria

The Veteran's back condition is rated at 20 percent pursuant to the General Rating Formula for the Spine and DC 5242. Under DC 5242, 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 rating of 40 percent is warranted when the evidence demonstrates forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine 30 degrees or less; or favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A rating of 50 percent is warranted when the evidence demonstrates unfavorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. A 100 percent (maximum) rating is warranted when the evidence demonstrates unfavorable ankylosis of the entire spine.

For VA compensation purposes, normal forward flexion of the cervical spine is zero to 45 degrees, extension is zero to 45 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 45 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 80 degrees. Normal forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine is zero to 90 degrees, extension is zero to 30 degrees, left and right lateral flexion are zero to 30 degrees, and left and right lateral rotation are zero to 30 degrees. The combined range of motion refers to the sum of the range of forward flexion, extension, left and right lateral flexion, and left and right rotation. The normal combined range of motion of the cervical spine is 340 degrees and of the thoracolumbar spine is 240 degrees. The normal ranges of motion for each component of spinal motion provided in this note are the maximum that can be used for calculation of the combined range of motion.

Factual Background and Analysis

The Veteran reports his back condition has gotten worse.

He received a VA examination in April 2021. The Veteran reported taking ibuprofen and using pain patches daily. The VA examiner documented an estimated range of motion (ROM) measurement during flare-ups of a forward flexion endpoint of 55 degrees. This is the most favorable ROM measurement from this VA examination. The VA examiner also documented no ankylosis of the spine.

The Board notes the Veteran was also diagnosed with intervertebral disc syndrome (IVDS), and the Board considered whether a rating under DC 5243 for IVDS was appropriate. The April 2021 VA examiner documented that the Veteran did not have episodes of acute signs and symptoms due to IVDS that required bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician in the past 12 months. Therefore, a rating under DC 5243 for IVDS would be less favorable for the Veteran.

The Veteran also received a VA examination in December 2016. He reported taking ibuprofen and tramadol for his back condition. The VA examiner documented a ROM measurement of a forward flexion endpoint of 45 degrees after repeated use over time. This is the most favorable ROM measurement from this VA examination. The VA examiner also noted no ankylosis of the spine. The Veteran received a VA examination in February 2013 where forward flexion was measured as 90 degrees or greater.

The Veteran testified, generally, at both the July 2024 and January 2021 Board hearings that ibuprofen did not help his back pain, including increased doses. As such, the Board finds the December 2016 and April 2021 VA examinations adequate in that they did not need to discount the effects of medication as the Veteran indicated ibuprofen did not help with the pain. See Ingram v. Collins, 30 Vet. App. 130 (2025).

The Veteran also submitted a private opinion for his back condition. See January 2021 M.J., MD Opinion. The private provider opined that the Veteran's back condition should be rated at 40 percent due to his use of a back brace, occasional walker, occasional wheelchair, and award of social security disability for his low back and polyarthritis. The January 2021 M.J., MD opinion does not contemplate the rating criteria under DC 5242, therefore, it is inadequate for rating purposes.

The Veteran submitted an additional private opinion completed by F.A., MD in January 2016. The private provider opined that the Veteran meets the criteria for a rating of 60 percent for IVDS based on incapacitating episodes having a total duration of at least six weeks during the past 12 months. The evidence of record for the period on review did not contain documentation of bed rest prescribed by a physician and treatment by a physician as required by the Formula for Rating IVDS based on Incapacitating Episodes. Thus, the January 2016 F.A., MD Private opinion is inadequate for rating purposes.

Applying the evidence of record to the rating criteria, the Veteran's back condition has not manifested with forward flexion of the thoracolumbar spine measured at 30 degrees or less, and it has not manifested in favorable ankylosis of the entire thoracolumbar spine. Accordingly, a 40 percent, or higher, rating for the Veteran's back condition is not warranted.

The Board acknowledges the many reports from the Veteran throughout the period on review that his back condition has worsened, including his testimony at the January 2021 and July 2024 Board hearings. However, the Board is limited to the award of disability ratings based on federal regulations and corresponding rating criteria.

For the reasons set forth above, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable. Accordingly, the appeal must be denied.

3. Increased rating for allergic rhinitis.

Specific Legal Criteria

The Veteran's allergic rhinitis is currently rated at noncompensable (0 percent) pursuant to DC 6522. Under DC 6522, a compensable 10 percent rating is warranted for allergic rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. A 30 (maximum) percent rating is warranted for allergic rhinitis with polyps. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, DC 6522.

Factual Background and Analysis

The Veteran asserts that his allergic rhinitis symptoms have worsened, and he practically can't breathe through his nose. See July 2024 Board Hearing.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in December 2016. The VA examiner documented that there is not greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis; there is not complete obstruction of the left side due to rhinitis; there is not complete obstruction of the right side due to rhinitis; and there are no nasal polyps. The examiner also noted that the Veteran was evaluated in 1978 by an Ear, Nose, and Throat physician, and was determined to have moderately narrowed right nasal passage.

The Veteran submitted a private opinion completed by M.F., MD in January 2021. The private
can't breathe through his nose. See July 2024 Board Hearing.

The Veteran submitted a private opinion completed by M.F., MD in January 2021. The private provider documented the Veteran's history of rhinitis and asserted a 20 percent disability rating is warranted. As there is no discussion of the rating criteria, to include amount of nasal passage obstruction or polyps, the Board finds the January 2021 M.F., MD opinion inadequate for rating purposes.

The Board notes the Veteran's attorney argued at the January 2021 Board hearing that the April 2017 VA examination for allergic rhinitis was factually inaccurate and old. However, the Veteran did not receive a VA examination in April 2017, and the Board will not address this argument further.

Applying the evidence of record for the period on review to the DC 6522 rating criteria, the Board finds that the Veteran's allergic rhinitis has not manifested with nasal polyps, did not have greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passage on both sides, or had complete obstruction on one side. Therefore, a compensable rating for allergic rhinitis is not warranted.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's testimony at the January 2021 and July 2024 Board hearings, generally, that his nasal passages are blocked, the blockages have worsened, and his ability to breathe has become hampered. While the Veteran is competent to report his symptoms, he lacks the relevant skills, training, and/or expertise, and is not competent to opine on a complex medical question regarding the percentage of blockage of his nasal passages. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Additionally, the Veteran is service connected for an occluded nasopharynx. The Veteran does not have the relevant skills, training, and/or expertise to opine that his difficulty breathing is attributed to his allergic rhinitis or his occluded nasopharynx.

The Board acknowledges the many reports from the Veteran throughout the period on review that his nasal blockage has worsened, including his testimony at the January 2021 and July 2024 Board hearings. However, the Board is limited to the award of disability ratings based on federal regulations and corresponding rating criteria.

For the reasons set forth above, the evidence persuasively weighs against the claim, and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is inapplicable. Accordingly, the appeal must be denied.

4. Increased rating for MDD.

Specific Legal Criteria

For the period on review the Veteran's MDD was rated under DC 9434 at 50 percent. DC 9434 is rated pursuant to the General Rating Formula for Mental Disorders. 38 C.F.R. § 4.130.

Under this formula, a 50 percent rating is assigned when there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms 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; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships.

A 70 percent rating is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment, with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as: suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; 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 work like setting); and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.

A 100 percent rating is assigned for total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms 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
routine activities; speech intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant; 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 work like setting); and an inability to establish and maintain effective relationships.

The list of symptoms under the rating criteria are meant to be examples of symptoms that would warrant a particular rating, but are not meant to be exhaustive, and the Board need not find all or even most of the symptoms to award a specific rating. Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442-43 (2002). However, a veteran may only qualify for a given disability rating under § 4.130 by demonstrating the particular symptoms associated with that percentage, or others of similar severity, frequency, and duration, and that those symptoms have resulted in the type of occupational and social impairment associated with that percentage. Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112, 117-18 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Under the General Formula for Mental Disorders, 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).

Factual Background and Analysis

The Veteran asserts his MDD symptoms have worsened and he is entitled to a higher rating.

The Veteran submitted a July 2024 Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) completed by a private provider. The Board notes this evidence was received within the appropriate evidence window. The private licensed psychologist documented the Veteran experienced passive suicide ideation and documented that he often does not care if he lives or dies, though he has no active plan to hurt himself. The private provider opined that the Veteran has a history of impaired impulse control leading to suicidal ideation.

Based on these reports of suicidal ideations, the Board finds the Veteran's MDD manifested with occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. See Bankhead v. Shulkin, 29 Vet. App. 10, 20 (2017) ("The language of [38 C.F.R. § 4.130] indicates that the presence of suicidal ideation alone, that is, a veteran's thoughts of his or her own death or thoughts of engaging in suicide-related behavior, may cause occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas").

The evidence of record for the period on review, however, does not support a finding of total occupational and social impairment, and a 100 percent rating is not warranted.

Affording the Veteran the benefit of the doubt (as required under 38 C.F.R. § 3.102), the Board finds the Veteran's MDD manifested with symptoms analogous to occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. Accordingly, a rating of 70 percent, but no higher, for the Veteran's MDD is warranted.

S. CHARLES NEILL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board K. Schwingler

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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer