BVA9501194 DOCKET NO. 93-03 219 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Nashville, Tennessee THE ISSUE Entitlement to an increased evaluation for chronic conjunctivitis, currently rated at 10 percent. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: The American Legion ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD N. D. Walker, Associate Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from July 1969 to June 1971. The veteran's claim for service connection for loss of vision was denied by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) in a rating decision dated in January 1993. The veteran was notified of the decision and of his appellate rights. A notice of disagreement has not been received. The issue of service connection for loss of vision is not before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board). CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that his condition has gotten worse to the point it should be rated at 30 percent. DECISION OF THE BOARD The Board, in accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), has reviewed and considered all of the evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file. Based on its review of the relevant evidence in this matter, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for an increased evaluation for chronic conjunctivitis. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All relevant evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's appeal has been obtained by the RO. 2. The veteran's conjunctivitis is active with objective symptoms, but does not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture as to render inapplicable the regular schedular standards. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the assignment of a disability evaluation greater than 10 percent for chronic conjunctivitis have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321, 4.1, 4.7, 4.84a, Diagnostic Code 6018 (1993). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Upon review of the record, the Board concludes that the veteran's claim is well grounded within the meaning of the statutes and judicial construction. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). The VA, therefore, has a duty to assist the veteran in the development of facts pertinent to his claim. Id. In reaching its determination, the Board considered the veteran's service medical records, reports of VA examinations, VA treatment notes, and the veteran's written statements. The Board concludes that all relevant data has been obtained for determining the merits of the veteran's claim. The VA has, therefore, fulfilled its obligation to assist the veteran in the development of the facts of his case as required by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a). II. Pertinent Law and Regulations Disability ratings are based on the average impairment of earning capacity resulting from disability. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 4.1 (1993). The average impairment as set forth in the VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, codified in 38 C.F.R. Part 4, includes diagnostic codes which represent particular disabilities. Generally, the degrees of disabilities specified are considered adequate to compensate for a loss of working time proportionate to the severity of the disability. Id. Diagnostic Code 6018 provides a maximum 10 percent evaluation for active chronic conjunctivitis with objective symptoms. In determining whether an increased evaluation is proper, the Secretary is responsible for determining whether the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 49, 55 (1990). If so, the claim is denied; if the evidence is in support of the claim or in equal balance, the claim is allowed. Id. II. Evaluation of Chronic Conjunctivitis The veteran contends that his condition has worsened and that he is therefore entitled to a disability evaluation of 30 percent. The veteran was granted service connection for chronic conjunctivitis, mild, with an evaluation of 10 percent in a rating determination issued in May 1975. The determination was based on a VA examination conducted in April 1975. The report of that examination states that the veteran reported burning and irritation of his eyes, sensitivity to bright light, and headaches from exposure to bright light. The physical examination showed that the conjunctiva was bilaterally and moderately infected. His eyes were otherwise normal. The veteran was examined again in April 1976. His primary complaint was irritation of the eyes and his disorder was diagnosed as chronic blepharoconjunctivitis. An authorized examination conducted in July 1991 revealed slightly reddened tarsal conjunctiva, otherwise normal eyes. The examining physician stated that not much chronic conjunctivitis was seen. The veteran's visual acuity was corrected to 20/20 in both eyes. In a VA examination conducted in December 1992, the examining physician stated that no definite eye-lid pathology was found and the veteran's visual acuity was corrected to 20/20 in both eyes. Analysis of the evidence submitted in support of the veteran's claim shows that none of the evidence supports an evaluation in excess of 10 percent, the maximum schedular evaluation available for chronic conjunctivitis. Diagnostic Code 6018 is the Code specifically applicable to the veteran's disability and there is no other code that would be appropriate to rate his disability under. There is no question regarding which of two evaluations would more properly classify the severity of his service- connected disability. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (1993). There has been no marked interference with employment or frequent hospitalizations to warrant an extra-schedular rating. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b) (1993). There is no indication that the veteran's disability is so unusual or exceptional as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular criteria. The preponderance of the evidence is, therefore, against the veteran's claim. ORDER An increased evaluation for chronic conjunctivitis is denied. WILLIAM J. REDDY Member, Board of Veterans' Appeals The Board of Veterans' Appeals Administrative Procedures Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 103-271, § 6, 108 Stat. 740, ___ (1994), permits a proceeding instituted before the Board to be assigned to an individual member of the Board for a determination. This proceeding has been assigned to an individual member of the Board. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.