SLEEP APNEA SYNDROMES (OBSTRUCTIVE CENTRAL MIXED)
ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR · 2026 · Case ID: A26040086
Summary
The Veteran, a Navy Veteran who served from June 1988 to December 1996 and again from July 2009 to January 2012, appealed the denial of an increased disability rating for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) beyond the 50 percent level. The Veteran contended that he was entitled to a higher rating, specifically seeking a rating greater than 50 percent for his OSA. The Board reviewed the evidence, including two VA examination reports from May 2020 and February 2025, as well as private and VA treatment records. These records consistently showed the Veteran uses a CPAP machine, which qualifies for the 50 percent rating under Diagnostic Code 6847. However, the evidence did not demonstrate the presence of chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale, or the need for a tracheostomy, which are the criteria for a 100 percent rating. The Board found that the evidence weighed against the claim for a higher rating, and therefore, the benefit of the doubt rule was not applied. Consequently, the Board denied entitlement to an increased rating for OSA beyond 50 percent.
Rationale
Veteran uses CPAP machine, qualifying for 50% rating.; No evidence of chronic respiratory failure, cor pulmonale, or tracheostomy.; Evidence weighs against claim for higher rating.
Full Decision Text
Citation Nr: A26040086 Decision Date: 04/29/26 Archive Date: 04/29/26 DOCKET NO. 251201-611262 DATE: April 29, 2026 ORDER Entitlement to a disability rating in excess of 50 percent for obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's OSA requires the use of breathing assistance device such as continuous airway pressure (CPAP) machine, but symptoms do not more nearly approximate chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention or cor pulmonale or requiring tracheostomy. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an increased rating greater than 50 percent for OSA have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.3, 4.7, 4.97, Diagnostic Code 6847. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION Insert dates of service and jurisdictional information only where relevant to the adjudication of the issues on appeal. The Veteran served on active duty from June 1988 to December 1996 and from July 2009 to January 2012 in the United States Navy. In the December 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (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 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. Entitlement to an increased rating for OSA. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an increased initial disability rating in excess of 50 percent for his OSA. The Veteran's OSA is rated under Diagnostic Code (DC) 6847. Under DC 6847, a 50 percent rating is assigned when the use of a CPAP machine is required. A 100 percent rating is assigned for sleep apnea that causes chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention or cor pulmonale or requires tracheostomy. 38 C.F.R. § 4.97. Here, the medical evidence and the lay statements of record do not show that a disability rating greater than 50 percent for OSA is warranted. A May 2020 VA examination report shows the Veteran is diagnosed with OSA and requires the use of a CPAP machine but does not exhibit evidence of chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale or requires tracheostomy. See May 2020 VA examination. A February 2025 VA examination report shows the Veteran does not show evidence of chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale or requires tracheostomy. See February 2025 VA examination. There is also no evidence in the private or VA treatment records of chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale, or tracheostomy. The Board has carefully reviewed the relevant evidence of record, to include the competent lay and medical evidence. Although sympathetic to the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an increased disability rating, there is no evidence that he has experienced chronic respiratory failure with carbon dioxide retention, cor pulmonale or requires tracheostomy, which is necessary to warrant the assignment of a higher rating. As such, the Board finds that a disability rating greater than 50 percent for OSA is not warranted. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Costello, 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 acheostomy, which is necessary to warrant the assignment of a higher rating. As such, the Board finds that a disability rating greater than 50 percent for OSA is not warranted. As the evidence of record persuasively weighs against the claim, the benefit of the doubt rule is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Costello, 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.