ALLERGIC RHINITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served in the Army from November 2013 to May 2020, appeals a rating decision concerning a respiratory disability. The Board found that the veteran's appeal of the April 2025 rating decision was premature, as the respiratory issue had been deferred for development. Consequently, the Board considered the appeal to be for an increased evaluation of service-connected rhinitis and for service connection for blepharitis with recurrent chalazion. Regarding rhinitis, the veteran claimed worsening symptoms, but a December 2024 VA examination found no evidence of obstruction or polyps, and the examiner's findings did not support an increased rating. The Board found the evidence persuasively against a higher rating for rhinitis, noting that the benefit of the doubt doctrine was not applicable as the evidence weighed against the claim. The claim for blepharitis with recurrent chalazion was remanded. The Board noted favorable findings of a current diagnosis, participation in toxic exposure risk activity (TERA), and exposure to burn pits. However, the VA examiner's opinion did not adequately address the veteran's statements regarding burn pit exposure or its potential impact on the eye condition. The case was remanded for a clarified opinion addressing these issues, including whether the blepharitis is at least as likely as not related to service and considering the veteran's in-service reports.

Rationale

No evidence of obstruction or polyps found on VA exam; Evidence persuasively against a higher rating; Benefit of the doubt doctrine not applicable as evidence weighed against claim

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039051
Decision Date: 04/27/26	Archive Date: 04/27/26

DOCKET NO. 250612-554447
DATE: April 27, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to a compensable rating for service-connected rhinitis is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for blepharitis with recurrent chalazion is remanded.

FINDING OF FACT

The Veteran's allergic rhinitis has not been productive of nasal polyps, greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passages on both sides, or complete obstruction on one side.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for an initial compensable rating for allergic rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served in active-duty service with the Army from November 2013 to May 2020.

This matter is on appeal from an April 2025 rating decision. As such, the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies. The Veteran submitted a June 2025 10182 and eventually decided on the Evidence review option.

The Board notes that in the submitted 10182 the Veteran attempted to appeal a April 2025 rating decision relating to entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability.

However, review of the April 2025 rating decision shows the issue relating to a respiratory disability had been deferred for pending development to address a duty to assist error and that no adjudication had occurred in the rating decision to be appealed by the Veteran's 10182.

As such, the Board finds the issue on appeal is for an increased evaluation for rhinitis and for service connection for blepharitis with recurrent chalazion.

The Board next notes that during the pendency of the appeal favorable findings were made to include finding and a current diagnosis for blepharitis with recurrent chalazion; participation in toxic exposure risk activity (TERA); and exposure to burn pits. As such, the Board is bound by the favorable findings. AMA, Pub. L. No. 115-55, § 5104A, 131 Stat. 1105, 1106-07.

Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed. Therefore, the Board may not consider this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

Increased Rating

Disability ratings are based upon VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities as set forth in 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings represent as far as can practicably be determined the average impairment in earning capacity in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155. The disability must be viewed in relation to its history. 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. A higher evaluation shall be assigned where the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher evaluation. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

The Board must consider entitlement to "staged" ratings to compensate for times since filing a claim when the disability may have been more severe than at other times during the course of the appeal. See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). Where, as here, entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in disability rating is at issue, the present level of disability is of primary concern. See Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994).

Thus, although the Board has thoroughly reviewed all evidence of record, the more critical evidence consists of the evidence generated during the appeal period. Further, the Board must evaluate the medical evidence of record since the filing of the claim for increased rating and consider the appropriateness of a "staged" rating (i.e., the assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts). See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

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
58 (1994).

Thus, although the Board has thoroughly reviewed all evidence of record, the more critical evidence consists of the evidence generated during the appeal period. Further, the Board must evaluate the medical evidence of record since the filing of the claim for increased rating and consider the appropriateness of a "staged" rating (i.e., the assignment of different ratings for distinct periods of time, based on the facts). See Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007).

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. All benefit of the doubt will be resolved in the Veteran's favor. 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

Rhinitis

The Veteran is currently service connected for rhinitis evaluated as noncompensable under Diagnostic Code 6522.

Under DC 6522, a 10 percent rating is warranted for allergic rhinitis when it is manifested by a greater than 50 percent obstruction of both nasal passages or complete obstruction of one nasal passage without polyps. A 30 percent disability rating is warranted when polyps are present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, DC 6522.

In November 2024 the Veteran claimed their rhinitis had worsened.

In a December 2024 VA examination the Veteran reported symptoms of constant runny nose; nasal congestion; sneezing; itchy throat; shortness of breath; and occasional frontal headaches. 

The examiner found no evidence of obstruction or polyps. There were no other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs, and/or symptoms, to include scars, related to his condition. There were no significant diagnostic test findings and/or results. 

After review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that an increased evaluation for the Veteran's rhinitis is not warranted.

As noted above, a 10 percent rating under DC 6522 is warranted for allergic rhinitis when it is manifested by a greater than 50 percent obstruction of both nasal passages or complete obstruction of one nasal passage without polyps. A 30 percent disability rating is warranted when polyps are present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, DC 6522.

The evidence to include VA examination does not support a finding that the Veteran did not have nasal polyps, greater than 50 percent obstruction of either nasal passage, or complete obstruction of one nasal passage, due to rhinitis. Accordingly, the Board finds that a compensable initial rating for chronic allergic rhinitis is not warranted under DC 6522.

The Board has considered whether separate and/or higher disability ratings are warranted under any other potentially applicable DCs pertaining to diseases of the ear, nose, and throat. As noted above, the Veteran did not have at least 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to traumatic septal deviation or complete obstruction on one side due to traumatic septal deviation related to their condition. Also, the Veteran did not have scars related to their condition. Therefore, a separate rating is not warranted under DCs 6502 or 6504. Additionally, the Veteran did not have vocal cord paralysis or any other pharyngeal or laryngeal conditions. Therefore, a higher and/or separate rating is not warranted under DCs 6515-6521. The evidence also does not show a diagnosis for sinusitis for DC 6513 to apply.

The Board has considered the Veteran and their representative's statements regarding the severity of the Veteran's rhinitis. While the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, the Veteran has not described symptoms of rhinitis of sufficient severity and frequency to warrant an increased evaluation. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).

As such, the VA treatment record and the VA examination reports of record do not indicate or otherwise suggest that the Veteran's rhinitis warrants an increased evaluation. Accordingly, the frequency and severity of the Veteran's episodes of sinusitis or rhinitis does not warrant a higher rating in excess of the currently assigned noncompensable rating for rhinitis at any time during the appeal period.

Therefore, the evidence is persuasively against a finding for a compensable evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected rhinitis. As evidence is persuasively against a finding for a higher rating, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Board finds remand is warranted for development.

Blepharitis with recurrent ch
. Accordingly, the frequency and severity of the Veteran's episodes of sinusitis or rhinitis does not warrant a higher rating in excess of the currently assigned noncompensable rating for rhinitis at any time during the appeal period.

Therefore, the evidence is persuasively against a finding for a compensable evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected rhinitis. As evidence is persuasively against a finding for a higher rating, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Board finds remand is warranted for development.

Blepharitis with recurrent chalazion

In a Novemebr 2024 claim, the Veteran claimed their eye disability was due to toxic exposure from air from burn pits during the Veteran's deployment to Afghanistan.

The Veteran submitted statements on their duties in service burning trash and debris and developed pain, discomfort, and blisters affecting the eyes a few weeks later.

In a January 2025 VA examination, the examiner did not find the Veteran's eye disability to be related to TERA.

The examiner discussed the causes of blepharitis with chalazion relating to a disruption in the glands located in the eyelids. The examiner noted possible causes  of such disruptions to include inflammatory skin disorders.

However, the examiner does not address the Veteran's statements in relation to their duties and exposure during service or specifically discusses any impact from the Veteran's reported exposure to burn pits in relation to their claimed eye disability.

As such, the Board finds remand is warranted to obtain an adequate opinion.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Return the claims file to the VA examiner who provided the January 2025 medical opinion on the nature and etiology of the Veteran's blepharitis with recurrent chalazion, if available, for clarification and addendum opinion. If that examiner is not available, the claims file should be provided to another physician to obtain the requested opinion. 

After review of the claims file, the examiner is asked to respond to the following:

(a.) Is it at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) the Veteran's blepharitis with recurrent chalazion had its onset during, was caused by, or is otherwise related to active service?

(b.) The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report in-service events and treatment, and the Veteran's symptoms and history; such reports and assertions must be specifically acknowledged and considered in formulating any opinions. If the examiner rejects the Veteran's reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so.

(c.) A complete rationale for any opinion expressed should be provided. In doing so, the examiner should reconcile any contrary medical evidence of record.

 

 

MICHAEL LANE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Yang, Jonathan

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.