BVA9500378 DOCKET NO. 92-05 148 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Albuquerque, New Mexico THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for right thigh shrapnel wound residuals. 2. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for tinnitus. 3. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim of entitlement to service connection for right eyebrow shrapnel wound residuals. 4. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for bilateral hearing loss disability. 5. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for bilateral otitis media. 6. Entitlement to an increased (compensable) evaluation for right wrist shell fragment wound residuals. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Siegel, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran served on active duty from June 1944 to December 1946. This appeal initially arose from a rating decision of November 1990, in which compensable evaluations for bilateral hearing loss disability, bilateral otitis media, and right wrist shell fragment wound residuals were denied; and a rating decision of February 1991, in which service connection for right thigh shrapnel injury residuals was denied, and in which it was determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen claims for service connection for tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel wound residuals. These rating decisions were rendered by the Albuquerque, New Mexico, Regional Office (RO). In a remand decision dated in April 1993, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) requested accomplishment of additional development of the record. In rating decisions of May 1993 and January 1994, the RO confirmed and continued its prior denials of compensable evaluations for otitis media and right wrist shell fragment wound residuals; in the latter rating decision, the RO also denied entitlement to a compensable evaluation for multiple noncompensable evaluations pursuant to the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 (1993). The question of entitlement to a compensable evaluation based on multiple noncompensable evaluations under 38 C.F.R. § 3.324 (1993) will not be addressed by the Board, inasmuch as that question has been rendered irrelevant as a consequence of the Board's determination that a compensable evaluation is warranted for the veteran's right wrist shell fragment wound residuals, as discussed below. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends, in essence, that the RO erred when it denied service connection for right thigh shrapnel injury residuals, and when it determined that new and material evidence had not been received to reopen claims for service connection for tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals. It is specifically alleged that these disabilities were incurred during service, and it is noted that he has averred that he was injured as a result of a mortar explosion. The veteran also, in essence, contends that the RO erred when it denied compensable evaluations for bilateral hearing loss disability, bilateral otitis media, and right wrist shell fragment wound residuals. In particular, he alleges that he has persistent bilateral ear infections, and that his right wrist aches during "bad" weather. He also alleges that his hearing loss "is worse now than it used to be some years ago." 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 his claim for service connection for right thigh shrapnel wound residuals, and that new and material evidence has not been received to reopen claims for service connection for tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel wound residuals. It is also the decision of the Board, after a review of the evidence and for the following reasons and bases, that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claims for compensable evaluations for bilateral hearing loss disability and bilateral otitis media. In addition, it is the decision of the Board, after a review of the relevant evidence and for the following reasons and bases, that the evidence favors the granting of a compensable evaluation for right wrist shell fragment wound residuals. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. All evidence necessary for an equitable disposition of the veteran's claims has been developed. 2. A right thigh injury is not shown until many years after the veteran's separation from active service, and is not shown to be related to such service. 3. Service connection for tinnitus was denied by the Albuquerque RO in a rating decision dated in May 1982. That determination was supported by the evidence then of record, and the veteran did not appeal therefrom. 4. The evidence received subsequent to May 1982 does not raise a reasonable possibility of an allowance of the veteran's claim for service connection for tinnitus. 5. Service connection for right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals was denied by the Albuquerque RO in a rating decision dated in December 1982. That determination was supported by the evidence then of record, and the veteran did not appeal therefrom. 6. The evidence received subsequent to December 1982 does not raise a reasonable possibility of an allowance of the veteran's claim for service connection for right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals. 7. Bilateral hearing loss disability is manifested by an average pure tone threshold of 18 decibels in the right ear and 15 decibels in the left ear, at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz, and by speech recognition of 90 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. 8. Bilateral otitis media is asymptomatic on clinical evaluation. 9. Right wrist shell fragment wound residuals are manifested primarily by a "small" right wrist scar that is asymptomatic, and by complaints of right wrist pain. 10. With regard to the veteran's claims for compensable evaluations for bilateral hearing loss disability, bilateral otitis media, and right wrist shell fragment wound residuals, neither an exceptional nor unusual disability picture has been demonstrated so as to render impractical application of the regular schedular standards. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Right thigh shrapnel injury residuals were not incurred in or aggravated by wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1993). 2. The May 1982 denial of service connection for tinnitus is final, and new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for that disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156(a) (1993). 3. The December 1982 denial of service connection for right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals is final, and new and material evidence has not been received to reopen the veteran's claim for service connection for that disability. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156(a) (1993). 4. The criteria for a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss disability are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1), Part 4, §§ 4.85, 4.86, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6100 (1993). 5. The criteria for a compensable evaluation for bilateral otitis media are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1), Part 4, Diagnostic Code 6200 (1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (1993) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). 6. The criteria for a 10 percent rating for right wrist shell fragment wound residuals are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1), Part 4, § 4.45, Diagnostic Codes 5214, 5215, 7803, 7804, 7805 (1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (1993) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS Initially, the Board finds that the veteran's claims are well grounded within the meaning of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991); that is, he has presented claims that are plausible. In this regard, the Board points out that the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) has held that the well-groundedness requirement shall not apply with regard to reopening disallowed claims and revising prior final determinations. Jones v. Brown, No. 93-315 (U.S. Vet. App., Nov. 14, 1994). The Board notes that the veteran has not alleged that any records of probative value that may be obtained and which have not already been associated with his claims folder are available. It is therefore found, with regard to all claims for which the well-groundedness requirement is applicable, that the duty to assist him, as mandated by 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991), has been satisfied. I. Service Connection for Right Thigh Shrapnel Injury Residuals As indicated above, the veteran contends that he incurred right thigh shrapnel injury residuals during his active service, and that service connection is accordingly warranted therefor. After a review of the record, however, the Board finds that his contentions are not supported by the evidence, and that his claim for service connection for right thigh shrapnel injury residuals fails. A review of the veteran's service medical records does not reveal that a right thigh problem, to include a right thigh shrapnel injury or residuals thereof, was accorded treatment or was otherwise identified during his active service. The report of the physical examination conducted in conjunction with his separation from service, dated in December 1946, shows that no musculoskeletal defects were discerned at that time, and that his skin was found to be "normal"; it does not indicate the inservice presence of any right thigh disorder, or that he incurred a right thigh shrapnel injury while in service. Similarly, an application for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) benefits, received from the veteran in November 1948, does not cite the presence of any right thigh shrapnel injury, or the residuals thereof. The report of an October 1952 VA examination, to include the report of a special VA orthopedic examination conducted at that time, does not indicate that a right thigh disability was found, or that complaints thereof were made. The Board notes that medical records dated subsequent to October 1952 refer to an inservice shrapnel wound that could be deemed to refer to a right thigh shrapnel injury. Specifically, it is noted that a summary of VA hospitalization from September 1953 to October 1953 shows that a shrapnel injury of the right knee was indicated by "[p]ast history"; however, this summary report does not show that a disability that could be deemed to pertain to the right thigh was found on physical examination. In fact, it must be pointed out that the medical evidence first indicates the presence of right thigh shrapnel wound residuals in 1982. The report of a VA examination conducted in April of that year notes the presence of a scar on the mid-portion of the anterior surface of the right thigh, and indicates that the veteran apparently related at that time that he had been struck by shrapnel in 1945; the report notes diagnoses to include right thigh shrapnel wounds. This report, however, does not provide a sufficient basis for finding that service connection for right thigh shrapnel injury residuals is appropriate. It must be reiterated that the veteran's service medical records, to include the report of the December 1946 separation examination, do not show the presence of any right thigh problems. In addition, the veteran himself does not refer to any such problem until at least 1953, or approximately six years after his separation from service, while the medical evidence itself initially indicates the presence of a right thigh "shrapnel wound" in 1982, or approximately 36 years after his separation from service. The medical evidence does not demonstrate that a right thigh scar was manifested prior to 1982, or that its presence as of that date was in any manner related to the veteran's active service that had concluded more than 35 years previously. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993). In view of the foregoing, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for service connection for right thigh shrapnel injury residuals. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993). II. Whether New and Material Evidence Has Been Received to Reopen Claims for Service Connection for Tinnitus and Right Eyebrow Shrapnel Injury Residuals Service connection for tinnitus was denied by the Albuquerque RO by means of a rating decision dated in May 1982, following review of both service and post service medical records. These records first show complaints of tinnitus, and specifically left ear tinnitus, in November 1966, approximately 20 years after the veteran's separation from active service. The report of a VA audiological evaluation conducted in April 1982 does not cite the presence of tinnitus, or of symptoms indicative thereof. The RO, in denying service connection for tinnitus, accordingly noted that this disability had not been shown on current examination. The veteran was notified of this decision, and of appellate procedures, but did not appeal within the one-year period provided by statute and regulation for such appeals. Service connection for right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals was denied by the Albuquerque RO by means of a rating decision dated in December 1982, again following review of both service and post service medical records. These records first show the presence of a disability identified as right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals in April 1982; the report of a VA examination conducted in that month notes the presence of a scar on the right upper eyelid, and indicates diagnoses to include right upper eyelid shrapnel wound. In denying service connection, the RO, in its December 1982 rating decision, pointed out that the evidence did not indicate the presence of this scar prior to the date of that examination, nor did the evidence demonstrate that it was "secondary to any injury in service." The veteran was notified of this decision also, and of appellate procedures, but did not appeal within the one-year period provided by statute and regulation for such appeals. The RO's denials of service connection were supported by the evidence then of record. Accordingly, those determinations are final, and may be reopened only upon the receipt of additional evidence which, under the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions, is both new and material. "New" evidence means more than evidence that has not previously been included in the claims folder, and must be more than merely cumulative, in that it presents new information. Colvin v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 171 (1991). In addition, the evidence, even if new, must be material in that it is relevant and probative; that is, it raises a reasonable possibility of allowance of the claim when viewed in conjunction with the record as a whole. The evidence received subsequent to May 1982 and December 1982, when service connection for tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals was denied, respectively, consists primarily of medical records dated thereafter, and testimony furnished by the veteran to include that proffered at a May 1991 personal hearing. The medical evidence shows treatment for disabilities other than tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals, with the exception of a February 1989 VA outpatient treatment record indicating impressions to include tinnitus "probably due to medication," an April 1991 VA outpatient treatment record pertaining to a skin tag "near" the right eye, and the report of a May 1993 VA examination noting the presence of tinnitus of three years' duration. In addition, the matters discussed at the May 1991 personal hearing , according to the transcript of that hearing, pertained solely to questions other than with regard to his request to reopen his claims for service connection. The Board must find that the evidence received since 1982 does not serve to reopen the veteran's claims for service connection for either tinnitus or for right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals, since this evidence cannot be considered "new" under Colvin. To the contrary, this evidence merely shows the presence of tinnitus and of a skin tag "near the right eye," and must accordingly be considered to be cumulative of the evidence that had been of record at the time the prior unappealed rating decisions were rendered. As indicated above, the evidence at that time included records that indicated that tinnitus had been manifested subsequent to separation from service, and that a scar on the upper right eyelid had been noted on examination in April 1982. The evidence received subsequent to those unappealed rating decisions reiterates this previously-known information. It does not demonstrate that tinnitus or a right eyelid scar classified as a right eyebrow shrapnel wound residual was manifested prior to 1966 or 1982, respectively. Likewise, the evidence received subsequent to 1982 does not demonstrate that the manifestation of those disabilities was in any manner related to the veteran's active service; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1993). The Board must accordingly find that new and material evidence has not been received with regard to claims for service connection for tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel injury residuals, and that the veteran's claims therefor have not been reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5108, 7105 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.156(a) (1993). III. A Compensable Evaluation for Bilateral Hearing Loss Disability Service connection for bilateral hearing loss disability was granted by the Albuquerque RO by means of a rating decision dated in November 1952, following review of the evidence then of record, including the veteran's service medical records and the report of an October 1952 VA examination. The RO noted that service records showed inservice treatment for otitis media, and accordingly granted service connection for a disability classified in part as "adjusted speech reception decibel loss in both ears less than 71"; a noncompensable evaluation was assigned therefor, and has remained in effect since that rating decision. The veteran currently contends that his bilateral hearing loss disability is of such severity as to warrant a compensable evaluation. After a review of the record, however, the Board finds that his contentions are not supported by the evidence, and that his claim for a compensable evaluation for this disability fails. The severity of hearing loss disability is ascertained, for VA rating purposes, by application of the criteria set forth at 38 C.F.R. § 4.87 (1993) of VA's Schedule for Rating Disabilities, 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993) (Schedule). Under these criteria, the degree of disability for bilateral service-connected hearing loss disability is determined by application of a rating schedule that establishes 11 auditory acuity levels, ranging from Level I (for essentially normal acuity) through Level XI (for profound deafness). 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4, §§ 4.85, 4.86, 4.87, Diagnostic Codes 6100 through 6110 (1993). The most recent evidence reflecting the severity of the veteran's hearing loss is the report of a VA audiologic evaluation conducted in October 1990, which shows that the average pure tone threshold at 1000, 2000, 3000 and 4000 hertz was 18 decibels in the right ear and 15 decibels in the left ear. Speech recognition was 90 percent in the right ear and 94 percent in the left ear. Under the criteria set forth in the Schedule, this degree of hearing loss is assigned Level II for the right ear and Level I for the left ear, and warrants a noncompensable evaluation under Diagnostic Code 6100 of the Schedule. Accordingly, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the veteran's claim for a compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4 §§ 4.85, 4.86, 4.87, Diagnostic Code 6100 (1993). In addition, since the medical record does not demonstrate that his bilateral hearing loss disability has necessitated either hospitalization or recent outpatient treatment, it must be concluded that this disorder does not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture, as would be manifested by marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, that would render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (1993). IV. A Compensable Evaluation for Bilateral Otitis Media Service connection for bilateral otitis media was granted by the Albuquerque RO in a rating decision dated in November 1952, following review of the evidence then of record, including the veteran's service medical records and the report of an October 1952 VA examination. The RO noted that the service medical records showed that the veteran had been accorded treatment for otitis media while in service, and that the VA examination report showed that his eardrums were slightly retracted and that there was thickening along the margins of each drum. Service connection was accordingly granted for a disability classified in part as "otitis media, chronic, catarrhal, bilateral, residuals of," rated as noncompensable. That noncompensable evaluation has been in effect since that rating decision. The veteran currently contends that his bilateral otitis media is of such severity as to warrant a compensable evaluation. After a review of the record, however, the Board finds that his contentions are not supported by the evidence, and that his claim for a compensable evaluation for this disability fails. The severity of otitis media is ascertained, for VA rating purposes, by application of the criteria set forth in Diagnostic Code 6200 of the Schedule. Under these criteria, a compensable evaluation is appropriate for otitis media that is suppurative and chronic, during continuance of the suppurative process; in the absence of evidence indicating active suppurative process, a noncompensable evaluation is to be assigned pursuant to the provisions of 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (Oct. 6, 1993, to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). The criteria for a compensable evaluation for bilateral otitis media are not met. VA outpatient treatment records dated in September 1987 and October 1987 show complaints of right ear drainage, and treatment thereof; a VA outpatient treatment record dated in November 1987, however, shows that the veteran indicated that the right ear felt better, and that there was "no more drainage." Medical records dated thereafter do not show that he was accorded treatment for symptoms of otitis media, or that he had complaints thereof. The report of the most recent clinical evaluation of this disability, which is the report of a special VA examination conducted for compensation purposes in May 1993, while noting his complaints of ear pain, also notes impressions to include "[n]o signs of otitis media." While the transcript of the May 1991 personal hearing shows that he testified at that time that he had ear problems "[a]bout three or four times in a year," the clinical evidence does not demonstrate that any such problems have been accorded treatment, or that any such treatment has been sought, since 1987. It must accordingly be found that the veteran's bilateral otitis media is currently asymptomatic, and that the preponderance of the evidence is against his claim for a compensable evaluation for this disability. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4, Diagnostic Code 6200 (1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (Oct. 6, 1993, to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). It must also be found that this disorder does not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture, as would be manifested by marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, that would render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (1993). V. A Compensable Evaluation for Right Wrist Shell Fragment Wound Residuals Service connection for right wrist shell fragment wound residuals was granted by the Albuquerque RO in a rating decision of December 1948, following review of the evidence then of record, including the veteran's service medical records showing the inservice incurrence of a right wrist shell fragment wound. The RO found that this injury had been superficial in nature, inasmuch as the service medical records show that a dressing had been applied, that he had returned to duty on the same date that the injury had been incurred, and that there was no recorded complaint or treatment pertaining to this injury thereafter. The disability was classified for rating purposes as "shell fragment wound right wrist," with a noncompensable evaluation assigned therefor and which has remained in effect since that rating decision. The veteran currently contends that his right wrist shell fragment wound residuals are of such severity as to warrant a compensable evaluation. After a review of the record, the Board is of the opinion that a compensable rating for such residuals is in fact appropriate. The severity of a wrist injury is ascertained, for VA rating purposes, by application of the criteria set forth in Diagnostic Codes 5214 and 5215 of the Schedule. Under these criteria, specified limitation of wrist motion is deemed to be 10 percent disabling (Diagnostic Code 5215); limitation of wrist motion that is less than that specified in Diagnostic Code 5215 is to be assigned a zero percent rating, in accordance with the provisions of 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (1993) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). In addition, the criteria set forth in Diagnostic Codes 7803, 7804 and 7805 of the Schedule provide for 10 percent ratings for specific impairment resulting from scars or symptomatology related thereto; again, impairment less than that identified in those diagnostic codes is assigned a zero percent rating pursuant to the provisions of 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (1993) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). The report of the most recent clinical evaluation of the veteran's right wrist, which is the report of the VA examination conducted for compensation purposes in April 1993, does not demonstrate that the criteria set forth in Diagnostic Codes 5214, 5215, 7803, 7804, or 7805 are satisfied. The provisions of Diagnostic Code 5214 stipulate that a compensable evaluation is warranted for wrist ankylosis, while those of Diagnostic Code 5215 stipulate that a compensable evaluation is warranted for wrist dorsiflexion of less than 15 degrees, or for palmar flexion that is limited in line with the forearm. The report of the May 1993 VA examination, however, shows that he accomplished right wrist palmar flexion to 70 degrees, which is considered to be full or normal palmar flexion, and right wrist dorsiflexion to 80 degrees, which is considered to be full or normal wrist dorsiflexion. The provisions of Diagnostic Code 7803 stipulate that a compensable evaluation is warranted for scars that are superficial or poorly nourished, with repeated ulceration, while the provisions of Diagnostic Code 7804 stipulate that a compensable evaluation is appropriate for scars that are superficial, tender, and painful on objective demonstration. In addition, the provisions of Diagnostic Code 7805 stipulate that in other circumstances scars are to be evaluated on the limitation of function of the body part affected. The report of the May 1993 VA examination, however, notes that the veteran had only a "small" 2mm round scar of entry that was 5cm proximal to the radial styloid on the right wrist. Neither this report, nor any other medical record, indicates that this scar was either tender, painful, poorly nourished, or manifested by repeated ulceration. Likewise, the evidence does not show that this scar was productive of any right wrist impairment; the April 1993 VA examination report shows that "all tendons work very well," and that right hand grip exceeded that of the left hand. In brief, the medical record does not demonstrate that a compensable evaluation under the appropriate diagnostic standards, as set forth in the Schedule, is warranted. However, it must be noted that the recent medical evidence shows that the veteran was accorded medical treatment on several occasions for complaints of right wrist pain. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 4.45 (1993) stipulate that pain on movement is a factor to be considered by VA in determining the level of impairment of a disability involving a joint or joints. In view of this regulation, it is the Board's opinion that, with benefit of the doubt applied on behalf of the veteran, a 10 percent rating is appropriate for his right wrist shell fragment wound residuals. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. Part 4, § 4.45, Diagnostic Codes 5214, 5215, 7803, 7804, 7805 (1993); 58 Fed. Reg. 52018 (1993) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 4.31). It is also the opinion of the Board that this disorder does not present such an exceptional or unusual disability picture, as would be manifested by marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization, that would render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards. 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (1993). ORDER Service connection for right thigh shrapnel wound residuals is denied. New and material evidence has not been received to reopen claims for service connection for tinnitus and right eyebrow shrapnel wound residuals, and the benefits sought on appeal with regard to those disabilities remain denied. A compensable evaluation for bilateral hearing loss disability is denied. A compensable evaluation for bilateral otitis media is denied. A 10 percent rating for right wrist shell fragment wound residuals is granted, subject to the laws and regulations governing the disbursement of monetary benefits. U. R. POWELL 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.