Citation Nr: A24001764 Decision Date: 01/16/24 Archive Date: 01/16/24 DOCKET NO. 200121-62814 DATE: January 16, 2024 ORDER Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of individual unemployability prior to September 4, 2019, is dismissed. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria being met prior to September 4, 2019, is dismissed. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance is established prior to September 4, 2019, is dismissed. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve, effective from September 4, 2019, dismissed. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy left lower extremity, sciatic nerve, is dismissed. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve, is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for acquired flat feet is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine degenerative joint and disc disease with IVDS is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder bursitis with impingement and degenerative joint disease is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for left knee tendonitis is dismissed. Entitlement to service connection for right knee tendonitis is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for multilevel degenerative changes of the lower lumbar spine with scoliosis of lumbar spine with IVDS is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, with involvement of the sciatic nerve, is dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity involving the femoral nerve dismissed. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, involving the femoral nerve, is dismissed. Entitlement to rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy with involvement of the sciatic nerve, which is currently 20 percent disabling, is dismissed. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of a 70 percent rating for major depressive disorder is denied. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for major depressive disorder is denied. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension is denied. Entitlement to service connection for asthma is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement an earlier effective date for special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria at his Board hearing. 2. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for GERD at his Board hearing. 3. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for multilevel degenerative changes of the lower lumbar spine with scoliosis of lumbar spine with IVDS at his Board hearing. 4. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for cervical spine degenerative joint and disc disease with IVDS at his Board hearing. 5. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance at his Board hearing. 6. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for left shoulder bursitis with impingement and DJD at his Board hearing. 7. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the sciatic nerve at his Board hearing. 8. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of sciatic nerve at his Board hearing. 9. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for acquired flat feet at his Board hearing. 10. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for sinusitis at his Board hearing. 11. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve at his Board hearing. 12. The Veteran withdrew his claim for a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve at his Board hearing. 13. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy with involvement of the sciatic nerve, at his Board hearing. 14. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of individual unemployability at his Board hearing. 15. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for left knee tendonitis at his Board hearing. 16. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for radiculopathy right lower extremity, femoral nerve at his Board hearing. 17. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve at his Board hearing. 18. The Veteran withdrew his claim for entitlement to service connection for right knee tendonitis at his Board hearing. 19. VA received the Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his psychiatric disorder on September 4, 2019. 20. The Veteran's depressive disorder does not result in total social and occupational impairment. 21. The Veteran's hypertension is not related to his military service. 22. The Veteran's asthma is not related to his military service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of individual unemployability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 2. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 3. The criteria for entitlement to an earlier effective date for basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 4. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, with involvement of the femoral nerve have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 5. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy left lower extremity, sciatic nerve have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 6. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 7. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to service connection for GERD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 8. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to service connection for cervical spine degenerative joint and disc disease with IVDS have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 9. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to service connection for left shoulder bursitis with impingement and DJD have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 10. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to service connection for acquired flat feet have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 11. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to service connection for sinusitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 12. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for multilevel degenerative changes of the lower lumbar spine with scoliosis of lumbar spine with IVDS have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 13. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to service connection for left knee tendonitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 14. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to service connection for right knee tendonitis have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 15. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the sciatic nerve have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 16. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 17. The criteria for dismissal for entitlement to rating in excess of 20 percent for right lower extremity radiculopathy with involvement of the sciatic nerve. have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 18. The criteria for dismissal of entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, with involvement of the femoral nerve have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. 19. The criteria for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of a 70 percent rating for persistent depressive disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.151, 3.155, 3.400, 20.302. 20. The criteria for entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.321, 4.1, 4.7, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. 21. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for hypertension have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 22. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for asthma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from August 1986 to August 1989 and from April 1991 to February 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2019 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In January 2020, the Veteran filed a VA-Form 10182 and selected a Board Hearing with a Veterans Law Judge. Withdrawal 1. Entitlement to special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria being met is granted from September 4, 2019. 2. Entitlement to service connection for GERD 3. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 20 percent for multilevel degenerative changes of the lower lumbar spine with scoliosis of lumbar spine with IVDS 4. Entitlement to service connection for cervical spine degenerative joint and disc disease with IVDS 5. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for basic eligibility to Dependents' Educational Assistance 6. Entitlement to service connection for left shoulder bursitis with impingement and DJD 7. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy left lower extremity, sciatic nerve 8. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the sciatic nerve 9. Entitlement to service connection for acquired flat feet 10. Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis 11. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve 12. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve 13. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve 14. Entitlement to rating in excess of 20 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the sciatic nerve 15. Entitlement to rating in excess of 10 percent for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve 16. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of individual unemployability is granted effective September 4, 2019. 17. Entitlement to service connection for left knee tendonitis 18. Entitlement to service connection for right knee tendonitis Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7105, the Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. A substantive appeal may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202, 20.204(b). Except for appeals withdrawn on the record at a hearing, appeal withdrawals must be in writing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204(c). Withdrawal may be made by the Veteran or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. At the August 2023 Board hearing, the Veteran, stated that he wished to withdraw all of his appeals except his claims pertaining to the claims associated with his depressive disorder, asthma, and hypertension. The Veteran's testimony demonstrated a clear and unequivocal intention to withdraw his appeals regarding the claims listed above. Thus, there remains no allegation of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration on these issues. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to the issues of entitlement to earlier effective dates for individual unemployability, special monthly compensation based on housebound criteria, dependents' educational assistance, service connection for radiculopathy of the left lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve, service connection for radiculopathy left lower extremity with involvement of the sciatic nerve, and service connection for radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the femoral nerve. The Board also does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to the issues of entitlement to service connection for gastroesophageal reflux disease, acquired flat feet, sinusitis, cervical spine degenerative joint and disc disease with IVDS, left shoulder bursitis with impingement and degenerative joint disease, left knee tendonitis, and right knee tendonitis. Lastly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal as to the issues of entitlement to increased ratings for multilevel degenerative changes of the lower lumbar spine with scoliosis of lumbar spine with IVDS, radiculopathy of the left lower extremity, with involvement of the sciatic nerve, radiculopathy of the left lower extremity involving the femoral nerve, radiculopathy of the right lower extremity, involving the femoral nerve, and radiculopathy of the right lower extremity with involvement of the sciatic nerve. Therefore, these claims are dismissed. Earlier effective date/ Increased Rating 19. Entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for persistent depressive disorder 20. Entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of a 70 percent rating for persistent depressive disorder. The Veteran contends that his disability warrants an increased rating and an earlier effective date for the assignment of the increased rating. In general, the effective date of an award of disability compensation, in conjunction with a grant of entitlement to service connection, shall be the day following separation from active service or the date entitlement arose if the claim is received within one year of separation from service; otherwise, the effective date shall be the date of receipt of the claim, or the date entitlement arose, whichever is later. 38 U.S.C. § 5110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(b)(2)(i). The reference above to "the date entitlement arose" is not defined in the current statute or regulation. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has interpreted it as the date when the claimant met the requirements for the benefits sought; this is determined on a "facts found" basis. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a); see also McGrath v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 28, 35 (2000). A specific claim in the form prescribed by the Secretary must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The term "claim" or "application" means 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); Brannon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 32, 34-35 (1998). Effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its adjudication regulations to require that all claims governed by VA's adjudication regulations be filed on standard forms prescribed by the Secretary (i.e., VA Form 21-526). 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). This rulemaking also eliminated the constructive receipt of VA reports of hospitalization or examination and other medical records as informal claims for increase and revised 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). These amendments, however, are only applicable with respect to claims and appeals filed on or after March 24, 2015, and are not applicable if a claim is found to have been received but unadjudicated prior to that date. See 79 Fed. Reg. 57,660, 57,686 (Sept. 25, 2014). With regard to the award of an increased rating for compensation, the effective date shall be the earliest date that it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred, if a claim is received within one year from that date. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(b)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(o)(2). The increase in disability must have occurred during the one-year period prior to the date of the Veteran's claim in order to receive the benefit of an earlier effective date. Gaston v. Shinseki, 605 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A disability rating is determined by the application of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4. The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and their residual conditions in civil occupations. Separate diagnostic codes identify the various disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.1. VA has a duty to acknowledge and consider all regulations that are potentially applicable through the assertions and issues raised in the record and to explain the reasons and bases for its conclusions. Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991). 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. The evaluation of the same disability under various diagnoses, known as pyramiding, is generally to be avoided. 38 C.F.R. § 4.14. The critical element in permitting the assignment of several ratings under various diagnostic codes is that none of the symptomatology for any one of the disabilities is duplicative or overlapping with the symptomatology of the other disability. See Esteban v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 259, 261-62 (1994). The Board will consider whether separate ratings may be assigned for separate periods of time based on facts found, a practice known as "staged ratings." Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119, 126-27 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). In considering the evidence in any given appeal, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold the same and, in so doing, accept certain medical opinions over others. Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307, 310-11 (1999). In this regard, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F. 3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F. 3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370 (2002); Klekar v. West, 12 Vet. App. 503, 507 (1999); Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000); Wilson v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 614, 618 (1992). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998); Owens v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 429, 433 (1995). When there is an approximate 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 claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the most persuasive evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990) On September 4, 2019, VA received a VA-Form 21-8940 Application for increased compensation based on unemployability. VA interpreted this filing as a claim for an increased rating. The Veteran's disability was awarded a 70 percent rating according to Diagnostic Code 9411. According to Diagnostic Code 9411, a 70 percent rating is assigned for 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); 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 time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id. The use of the term 'such as' in the general rating formula for mental disorders in 38 C.F.R. § 4.130 demonstrates that the symptoms after that phrase are not intended to constitute an exhaustive list, but rather are to serve as examples of the type and degree of symptoms, or their effects, that would justify a particular rating. See Mauerhan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 436, 442 (2002). It is not required to find the presence of all, most, or even some, of the enumerated symptoms recited for particular ratings. Id. The use of the phrase 'such symptoms as,' followed by a list of examples, provides guidance as to the severity of the symptoms contemplated for each rating, in addition to permitting consideration of other symptoms that are particular to each veteran and disorder, and the effect of those symptoms on his or her social and work situation. Id. In Vazquez-Claudio v. Shinseki, 713 F.3d 112 (Fed. Cir. 2013), the Federal Circuit stated that "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." It was further noted that "§ 4.130 requires not only the presence of certain symptoms but also that those symptoms have caused occupational and social impairment in most of the referenced areas." When evaluating a mental disorder, the Board shall consider the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remissions, and the veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a). The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that bears on occupational and social impairment rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. Id. As to a current diagnosis, the Board notes that the Veteran's disability has been diagnosed as major depressive disorder. As to the Veteran's lay statements, the Board notes that the Veteran testified that he doesn't like being around crowds. The Veteran stated that he is always nervous. The Board also notes that the Veteran's wife testified that the Veteran has difficulty sleeping, he keeps to himself, and he will be irritable. Turning to the medical evidence at hand, the Board notes that the Veteran attended a VA examination in November 2019. The Veteran stated that he is irritable and that "he doesn't sleep well." He stated that he has bad nightmares. He stated that he enjoys some interaction with family but does wants them to stay only a little while. He stated that he does not like crowded places. He stated that he developed panic attacks. The examiner indicated that the Veteran was appropriately dressed and displayed good grooming and hygiene. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's concentration and attention were intact. The examiner indicated that the Veteran had appropriate mood and affect. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's short and long term memory was intact. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's judgement was fair. The examiner indicated that the Veteran's thought processes were linear, logical, and goal directed. The examiner indicated that there was no evidence of hallucinations, delusions, or thought disorders. The examiner indicated that the Veteran denied suicidal and homicidal ideations or intent. Lastly, the examiner opined that the Veteran's disability resulted in occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity. The Board also reviewed the Veteran's VA treatment records. The Veteran's VA treatment records indicated that the Veteran exhibited symptoms of anxiety and depression. The records also indicated that he had suicidal thoughts in the past, but he reported that they were passive and represented a sense of feeling helpless to manage current life circumstances. The Veteran's records also indicated that he denied any plan or intent for self-harm. In sum, the Board finds that entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of a 70 percent rating for the Veteran's major depressive disorder is not warranted. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the Veteran is already in receipt of the earliest possible effective date for the award of an increased rating for this disability, which is the date he filed a claim for individual unemployability. The Board notes that the record does not contain any communication which could be construed as a claim for benefits prior to the Veteran's September 4, 2019, VA-Form 21-8940 application for increased compensation based on unemployability. Moreover, the Board notes that the evidence of record prior to September 4, 2019, does not render it factually ascertainable that the Veteran met the criteria for a 70 percent rating. In fact, the first evidence that the Veteran's disability exhibited symptoms that warranted a 70 percent rating occurred was a September 26, 2019, VA treatment note. Therefore, because it is not factually ascertainable an increase in the Veteran's psychiatric disability had occurred prior to September 4, 2019, the Veteran is not entitled to an earlier effective date for the award of a 70 percent rating. Thus, the most persuasive evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim for entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of a 70 percent rating for major depressive disorder, must be denied. In sum, the Board finds that the Veteran's disability has remained consistent, and an increased rating is not warranted. After a review of the record, the Board notes that the record is silent for any reports of hallucinations, delusions, and grossly inappropriate behavior. The evidence of record also does not show that the Veteran was unable to perform activities of daily living, was disoriented to time or place, or experienced memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. The Board acknowledges that the record showed that the Veteran exhibited suicidal ideations; however, this symptom is already considered in the currently assigned rating and together with his other symptoms is not found to justify a finding of total social and occupational impairment. Indeed, the Veteran himself has testified to some level of interaction with both his wife and children that while not ideal at times, is not consistent with a finding of total social impairment. Lastly, the Board notes that the medical professionals who have evaluated the Veteran throughout the course of the appeal have not found that his symptoms were so severe as to constitute total occupational and social impairment. For the above stated reasons, the Board must unfortunately find that the most persuasive evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the claim for entitlement to a 100 percent rating for major depressive disorder, must be denied. Service Connection The Veteran contends that his disabilities are related to his military service. In order to establish service connection for the claimed disability, there must be (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) medical evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). The requirement of a current disability is "satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim." See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Service connection is warranted where the evidence of record establishes that a particular injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred in the line of duty in the active military service or, if pre-existing such service, was aggravated thereby. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. If a condition noted during service is not shown to be chronic, then generally a showing of continuity of symptomatology after service is required for service connection if the disability is one that is listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a). 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); see also Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Service connection may also be granted on the basis of a post-service initial diagnosis of a disease, where the physician relates the current condition to the period of service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Other specifically enumerated disorders will be presumed to have been incurred in service if they manifested to a compensable degree within the first year following separation from active duty. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.309. In addition, for secondary service connection, it must be shown that the disability for which the claim is made is proximately due to or the result of service-connected disease or injury, or that service-connected disease or injury has aggravated the nonservice-connected disability for which service connection is sought. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Lay statements may serve to support a claim for service connection by supporting the occurrence of lay-observable events or the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation. 38 U.S.C. § 1153 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Although lay persons are competent to provide opinions on some medical issues, some medical issues fall outside the realm of common knowledge of a lay person. See Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428, 435 (2011). Generally, the degree of probative value which may be attributed to a medical opinion issued by a VA or private treatment provider takes into account such factors as its thoroughness and degree of detail, and whether there was review of the claims file. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-9 (2000). Also significant is whether the examining medical provider had a sufficiently clear and well-reasoned rationale and a basis in objective supporting clinical data. See Bloom v. West, 12 Vet. App. 185, 187 (1999); Hernandez-Toyens v. West, 11 Vet. App. 379, 382 (1998); see also Claiborne v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 181, 186 (2005) (rejecting medical opinions that did not indicate whether the physicians actually examined the Veteran, did not provide the extent of any examination, and did not provide any supporting clinical data). In evaluating the evidence in any given appeal, it is the responsibility of the Board to weigh the evidence and decide where to give credit and where to withhold the same and, in so doing, accept certain medical opinions over others. Schoolman v. West, 12 Vet. App. 307, 310-11 (1999). In this regard, the Board has been charged with the duty to assess the credibility and weight given to evidence. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F. 3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Jandreau, supra. Indeed, the Court has declared that in adjudicating a claim, the Board has the responsibility to do so. Bryan v. West, 13 Vet. App. 482, 488-89 (2000). In doing so, the Board is free to favor one medical opinion over another, provided it offers an adequate basis for doing so. Evans v. West, 12 Vet. App. 22, 30 (1998). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under the laws administered by VA. VA shall consider all information and medical and lay evidence of record. When there is an approximate 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 claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3; Lynch v. McDonough, 999 F.3d 1391 (Fed. Cir. 2021). 21. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension As to a current diagnosis, the Board notes that the Veteran's disability has been diagnosed as hypertension. As to the in-service incurrence, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records do not show any treatment or a diagnosis for hypertension. As to the Veteran's lay statements, the Board notes that the Veteran testified that he believes that his hypertension is due to the medication that he was prescribed for his service-connected back disability. Turning to the medical evidence at hand, the Board notes that the Veteran's VA treatment records are silent for a medical opinion that has attributed the Veteran's hypertension to his military service or his service-connected disabilities. Under AMA, the Board may only remand an issue to correct any pre-decisional duty to assist errors and for "correction of any other error by the AOJ in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the appellant's claim." 38 C.F.R. § 20.802 (a). Additionally, under the AMA, the duty to assist in providing a medical examination or opinion only applies to a claim or a supplemental claim until the time that a claimant is provided notice of the AOJ's decision; it does not apply to review on appeal by the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (e), (f). The Board acknowledges the Veteran's contention at his Board hearing that his hypertension may be proximately due to or aggravated by medication prescribed for his service-connected back disability. This contention is new, and it was not before the AOJ at the time of the rating decision on appeal, nor was there any evidence reflecting that the Veteran's hypertension was proximately due to or aggravated by his medication. To the extent that the Veteran's testimony is evidence that the Veteran's hypertension is proximately due to or aggravated by medication prescribed for his service-connected back disorder, such evidence may not form the basis of a remand, as provided for by C.F.R. § 20.802 (a) and 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (e), (f). In sum, the Board finds that service connection for hypertension at this time is not warranted. After a review of the Veteran's claims file, the Board has found no in-service event, injury, or disease that has caused the Veteran to develop hypertension. In addition, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any treatment or a diagnosis for hypertension. Moreover, the Veteran's post-service medical history contains no evidence that demonstrates that his present disability is related to his military service or service-connected disabilities. Lastly, the Board finds that the Veteran's medical records have demonstrated that the Veteran's disability had its onset several decades after he separated from the military and the Veteran's medical records do not show a continuity of symptomatology since service. For the above-stated reasons, the most persuasive evidence is against the claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and entitlement to service connection for hypertension is not warranted. 22. Entitlement to service connection for asthma Initially, the Board notes that the threshold question that must be addressed is whether the Veteran actually has a diagnosis of the disability for which service connection is sought, specifically a diagnosis for asthma. In the absence of proof of a present disability, there is no valid claim of service connection. See Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). As to a current diagnosis, the Board notes that the Veteran's records are silent for a diagnosis of asthma. As to the in-service incurrence, the Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records are silent for any treatment or a diagnosis for asthma. As to the Veteran's lay statements, the Board acknowledges that he believes that he has asthma because he was exposed to jet fuel fumes in the Navy. Turning to the medical evidence at hand, the Board notes that the Veteran's VA treatment records are silent for a diagnosis of asthma. It does, however, contain a diagnosis of sleep apnea, which may explain some of the treatment the Veteran believes is related to asthma. In sum, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection for asthma at this time is not warranted. After a review of the record, the Board finds that the record is silent for a diagnosis of asthma throughout the pendency of the appeal. Specifically, the Board notes that the most probative evidence of record was the Veteran's VA treatment records which do not show a diagnosis of asthma. Accordingly, the Board notes that in the absence of proof of a present disability, there can be no valid claim. As the medical evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has a current disability of asthma, the Board must unfortunately find that the most persuasive evidence is against the claim for service connection for asthma. Therefore, service connection for this disability is not warranted and the claim must be denied. Michael J. Skaltsounis Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Rescan, 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.