ALLERGIC OR VASOMOTOR RHINITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served in the U.S. Navy from August 1985 to April 1987, appeals the denial of increased disability ratings for his service-connected rhinitis and sinusitis. The veteran sought ratings higher than the 10 percent for rhinitis and 30 percent for sinusitis, which were the current evaluations. The Board reviewed the evidence, including a June 2018 VA examination. For rhinitis, the examiner found greater than 50 percent obstruction on both sides but no polyps or complete obstruction on one side, consistent with the 10 percent rating. The Board noted that rhinitis is rated under DC 6522 and cannot be rated by analogy, and the evidence did not support a higher rating. For sinusitis, the examiner found 7 or more non-incapacitating episodes per year, consistent with the 30 percent rating, but no incapacitating episodes requiring prolonged treatment, no radical surgery, and no repeated surgeries, thus not meeting criteria for higher ratings. The Board also addressed the veteran's contention that obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) was a complication of his rhinitis and sinusitis. However, the Board found the evidence insufficient to support this, noting a private opinion suggested OSA symptoms worsened, not that OSA arose from rhinitis/sinusitis. The Board invited the veteran to file a new claim for secondary service connection for OSA if he believes it is caused or aggravated by his rhinitis or sinusitis. The Board found the benefit-of-the-doubt rule inapplicable as the evidence favored the current ratings. Therefore, the Board denied increased ratings for both conditions.

Rationale

VA examiner found >50% obstruction bilaterally, but no polyps or complete unilateral obstruction.; DC 6522 criteria for higher rating require polyps or complete unilateral obstruction.; Rhinitis is specifically listed under DC 6522 and cannot be rated by analogy.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26039323
Decision Date: 04/28/26	Archive Date: 04/28/26

DOCKET NO. 251030-603629
DATE: April 28, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis is denied.

Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for sinusitis is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran's service-connected rhinitis was without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passages on both sides.

2. For the entire period on appeal, the Veteran's service-connected sinusitis was productive of more than six non-incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent discharge or crusting.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522.

2. The criteria for an evaluation in excess of 30 percent for sinusitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.1-4.14, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6513.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 1985 through April 1987.

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal from an October 2024 rating decision issued by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).

In October 2025, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement). The Veteran selected the direct review docket.

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the October 2024 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

The Board notes that in his July 2024 VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, the Veteran indicated that the issues in his claim included both the ratings and effective dates for his service-connected rhinitis and sinusitis as decided by the Board in its July 2023 decision. Nevertheless, the October 2024 rating decision on appeal in this matter only rendered a decision regarding the Veteran's ratings for his service-connected rhinitis and sinusitis. The AOJ did not address the issues of effective dates.

Therefore, although the Veteran indicated on his October 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), that he was seeking to appeal both the initial ratings and the effective dates for his service-connected rhinitis and sinusitis, the issues of entitlement to earlier effective dates for the Veteran's service-connected rhinitis and sinusitis are not before the Board.

Law and Analysis

Initially, the Board notes that neither the Veteran nor his representative has raised any issues with the pre-decisional duty to notify or duty to assist. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board ... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The rating 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
 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board ... to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to a duty to assist argument).

Disability ratings are determined by applying the criteria set forth in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities, found in 38 C.F.R., Part 4. The rating 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. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7.

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. Consideration of the whole-recorded history is necessary so that a rating may accurately reflect the elements of disability present. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2; Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 282 (1991). While the regulations require review of the recorded history of a disability by the adjudicator to ensure a more accurate evaluation, the regulations do not give past medical reports precedence over the current medical findings.

Where entitlement to compensation has already been established and an increase in the disability rating is at issue, it is the present level of disability that is of primary concern. Francisco v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 55, 58 (1994). However, where the question for consideration is the propriety of the initial rating assigned, evaluation of the evidence since the effective date of the grant of service connection is required. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 125-26 (1999). Where VA's adjudication of the claim for increase is lengthy and factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected disability exhibits symptoms which would warrant different ratings, different or "staged" ratings may be assigned for such different periods of time. Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 509-10 (2007); Fenderson, 12 Vet. App. at 126-27.

Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits. VA shall consider all information and lay and medical evidence of record in a case and when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-2 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (benefit-of-the-doubt rule not for application when evidence persuasively favors one side or the other).

Rhinitis

The Veteran's service-connected rhinitis is currently assigned a 10 percent evaluation, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6522.

Under Diagnostic Code 6522, a 10 percent evaluation is assigned for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis without polyps, but with greater than 50 percent obstruction of nasal passages on both sides or complete obstruction on one side. A 30 percent evaluation is warranted for allergic or vasomotor rhinitis with polyps. A 30 percent evaluation is the maximum schedular evaluation possible for allergic rhinitis under Diagnostic Code 6522.

In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected rhinitis.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his rhinitis claim in June 2018. The VA examiner found that the Veteran has a greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis. The VA examiner did not find that the Veteran had a complete obstruction on the left side or the right side due to rhinitis. The VA examiner found that there was no permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates. Additionally, the VA examiner specifically found that
 Code 6522.

In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected rhinitis.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his rhinitis claim in June 2018. The VA examiner found that the Veteran has a greater than 50 percent obstruction of the nasal passage on both sides due to rhinitis. The VA examiner did not find that the Veteran had a complete obstruction on the left side or the right side due to rhinitis. The VA examiner found that there was no permanent hypertrophy of the nasal turbinates. Additionally, the VA examiner specifically found that the Veteran did not have nasal polyps, and that he did not have a granulomatous condition.

The evidence of record does not show or suggest that the Veteran had polyps at any time during the appeal period. Because the June 2018 VA examiner specifically found that the Veteran does not have nasal polyps, and because there is no other evidence of record contrary to the VA examiner's finding, the Board finds that the Veteran does not meet the criteria for an evaluation in excess of 10 percent for rhinitis.

The Board further finds that a higher or separate rating is not warranted under any other potentially applicable Diagnostic Code. In this regard, in Copeland v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 333, 338 (2015), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims held that when a condition is specifically listed in the rating schedule, it may not be rated by analogy. See also Suttmann v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 127, 134 (1993) (providing that "[a]n analogous rating... may be assigned only where the service-connected condition is 'unlisted."). Thus, as the Veteran's rhinitis is specifically listed in the Rating Schedule under Diagnostic Code 6522, such disability may not be rated by analogy.

The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and finds that it does not apply, because the evidence persuasively favors finding that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for his service-connected rhinitis. See Lynch v. McDonough, Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-2 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Sinusitis

The Veteran's service-connected sinusitis is currently assigned a 30 percent evaluation, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6513.

Under the General Rating Formula for Sinusitis, a noncompensable rating is assigned when the disability is detected by x-ray only. A 10 percent evaluation is contemplated for one or two incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis requiring prolonged (lasting four to six weeks) antibiotic treatment, or three to six non-incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent discharge or crusting. A 30 percent evaluation is warranted for three or more incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis requiring prolonged (lasting four to six weeks) antibiotic treatment, or more than six non-incapacitating episodes per year of sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain, and purulent discharge or crusting. A 50 percent rating is assigned following radical surgery with chronic osteomyelitis, or when there is near constant sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain and tenderness of affected sinus, and purulent discharge or crusting after repeated surgeries.

For VA purposes, an incapacitating episode of sinusitis means one that requires bed rest and treatment prescribed by a physician. See Note, 38 C.F.R. § 4.97, Diagnostic Codes 6510 to 6514.

In considering the evidence of record under the laws and regulations as set forth above, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for his service-connected sinusitis.

The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in connection with his sinusitis claim in June 2018. The VA examiner found that the Veteran had the following symptoms attributable to his sinusitis: episodes of sinusitis; headaches; pain of the affected sinus; and tenderness of the affected sinus. The VA examiner found that the Veteran did not have the following symptoms attributable to his sinusitis: chronic sinusitis detectable only by imaging studies; near constant sinusitis; purulent discharge; and crusting.

The VA examiner found that the Veteran experienced non-incapacitating episodes of sinusitis 7 or more times in the preceding 12 months. The VA examiner found that the Veteran did not experience any incapacitating episodes of sinusitis requiring prolonged (4 to 6 weeks) antibiotic treatment in the preceding 12 months.

The VA examiner found that
. The VA examiner found that the Veteran had the following symptoms attributable to his sinusitis: episodes of sinusitis; headaches; pain of the affected sinus; and tenderness of the affected sinus. The VA examiner found that the Veteran did not have the following symptoms attributable to his sinusitis: chronic sinusitis detectable only by imaging studies; near constant sinusitis; purulent discharge; and crusting.

The VA examiner found that the Veteran experienced non-incapacitating episodes of sinusitis 7 or more times in the preceding 12 months. The VA examiner found that the Veteran did not experience any incapacitating episodes of sinusitis requiring prolonged (4 to 6 weeks) antibiotic treatment in the preceding 12 months.

The VA examiner found that the Veteran had not had any sinus surgery. The VA examiner also found that the Veteran had not had repeated sinus-related surgical procedures performed.

The evidence of record does not show or suggest that the Veteran had radical surgery with chronic osteomyelitis, or that the Veteran has near constant sinusitis characterized by headaches, pain and tenderness of affected sinus, and purulent discharge or crusting after repeated surgeries. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent at any point throughout the entire period on appeal.

The Board has considered the benefit-of-the-doubt rule and finds that it does not apply, because the evidence persuasively favors finding that the Veteran is not entitled to an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for his service-connected sinusitis. See Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776, 781-2 (Fed. Cir. 2021).

Other Considerations

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention that he has obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) as a complication of his service-connected rhinitis and sinusitis. See July 2024 Supplemental Claim; October 2025 VA Form 10182. The Board is cognizant of the holding in Bailey, that requires considerations of potential "complications" of a service-connected disability in the context of an increased rating appeal. See generally, Bailey v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 188 (2021).

Here, however, the Board finds the evidence is insufficient to support that the OSA is a complication of his sinusitis and rhinitis. Indeed, the September 2024 private medical opinion submitted in support of the Veteran's contention concludes that his rhinitis and sinusitis have worsened his OSA symptoms, not that his OSA was a complication that arose out of his rhinitis and sinusitis. While there are circumstances in which "complications" of an underlying disability may be considered within the context of an increased rating claim, the Board finds those circumstances do not apply here. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155(d)(2) (requires VA to consider "complications" in connection with a properly initiated claim). If the Veteran believes his OSA is "secondary" to his rhinitis or sinusitis (i.e., is caused or aggravated by his rhinitis or sinusitis) the Board invites him to file such a claim with the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) so that it can be properly developed and considered. At this time, there is no such claim, and therefore, the appeal is not procedurally before the Board here. 38 C.F.R. § 3.155 (requiring a claimant to file claims formally on forms prescribed by the Secretary).

 

JENNIFER HWA

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Schoettmer, Matthew S.

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.