BVA9508465 DOCKET NO. 91-45 769 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia THE ISSUES 1. Service connection for plantar calluses, right foot. 2. Service connection for essential hypertension. 3. Service connection for bilateral pes planus. 4. Service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae. 5. Service connection for bilateral hallux valgus deformity. 6. Service connection for hypercholesterolemia. 7. Service connection for hyperuricemia. 8. Increased rating for scars of the right and left temple and right face, currently rated 10 percent disabling. 9. Increased rating for post-traumatic headaches, currently rated as 10 percent disabling. 10. Increased (compensable) rating for bilateral tinea pedis. 11. Increased (compensable) rating for plantar calluses, left foot. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Georgia Department of Veterans Service WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD William L. Pine, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant served on active duty from August 1965 to May 1973. This appeal is from rating decisions of October 1989 and July 1994 by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The latter rating decision granted service connection for scars of the right and left temple and assigned a 10 percent rating for them together with the previously service-connected scar of the right face as a single disability, and also granted a 10 percent rating for headaches. The appellant did not respond to the supplemental statement of the case or the letter of notice of the rating, but the substantive appeal in this case specifically expressed a belief in entitlement to ratings higher than that granted for either disability. The Board deems the ratings granted for headaches and scars in the July 1994 decision as still on appeal, with the issue as to scars to be increased rating for the several service-connected scars. The appellant testified in a September 1990 hearing that he has pain in his left shoulder radiating into his arm. It is unclear whether he intended to claim service connection. The matter is referred to the RO for appropriate development. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The appellant contends that he incurred in service each of the disabilities claimed for service connection. He specifically avers he is entitled to a 50 percent rating for headaches, a 30 percent rating for a skin condition, a 30 percent rating for facial scars and a 10 percent rating for calluses of the feet. He also contends that he loses either two days a month occasionally due to headaches, three months in the past year due to his feet and headaches, or 1500 hundred hours in the two years preceding October 1992 due to his feet. 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(s). 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 appellant has failed to meet his burden to present evidence that the claims for service connection for hypertension, pseudofolliculitis barbae or bilateral hallux valgus are well grounded; the appeal from denial of claims for service connection for hypercholesterolemia and for hyperuricemia are not based on a specific allegation of error of fact or law in the rating decision appealed; service connection for plantar calluses of the right foot is warranted; service connection for bilateral pes planus is not warranted; a compensable rating for bilateral tinea pedis is warranted; and an increased rating for facial scars, post-traumatic headaches or plantar calluses of the left foot is not warranted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The appellant developed plantar calluses of the right foot in service. 2. The appellant has not presented evidence that he had essential hypertension in service or that he has it presently. 3. The appellant's bilateral pes planus pre-existed service and did not increase in severity during service. 4. The appellant has not presented evidence that he had pseudofolliculitis barbae in service or that there is any connection between currently diagnosed pseudofolliculitis barbae and the appellant's active military service. 5. The appellant has not submitted any evidence that he had bilateral hallux valgus deformity in service or showing a connection between active military service and currently diagnosed hallux valgus deformity. 6. Hypercholesterolemia is not a disease or injury. 7. Hyperuricemia is not a disease or injury. 8. Facial scars are not more than moderately disfiguring. 9. Post-traumatic headaches are not prostrating more often than an average frequency of once in two months over the last several months. 10. Bilateral tinea pedis is manifested by a large amount of scaling and maceration of a severity nearly approximating an extensive area in disabling effect. 11. Plantar calluses of the left foot do not cause limitation of function of the foot. CONCLUSION OF LAW 1. Plantar calluses of the right foot were incurred in wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994). 2. The claim for service connection for hypertension is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). 3. The preexisting bilateral pes planus was not aggravated by wartime service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1153, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (1994). 4. The claim for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). 5. The claim for service connection for bilateral hallux valgus deformity is not well grounded. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). 6. The appeal from the denial of service connection for hypercholesterolemia does not specifically allege an error of fact or law in the rating decision appealed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). 7. The appeal from the denial of service connection for hyperuricemia does not specifically allege an error of fact or law in the rating decision appealed. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). 8. The schedular criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for facial scars are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7800 (1994). 9. The schedular criteria for a rating in excess of 10 percent for post-traumatic headaches are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.10, 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8100 (1994). 10. The schedular criteria for a 10 percent rating for bilateral tinea pedis are met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.20, 4.27, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7814-7806 (1994). 11. The schedular criteria for an increased (compensable) rating for plantar calluses of the left foot are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1155, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.10, 4.20, 4.27, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7819-7805 (1994). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The appellant's claims for service connection for plantar calluses of the right foot and for bilateral pes planus are well grounded, as are the claims for increased ratings, and the evidence is sufficiently developed for appellate purposes. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). On request for outpatient and inpatient records from Carl Vinson VA Medical Center (VAMC) from January 1982 to May 1985, the RO received a negative response for any records predating May 1989. The RO attempted to obtain records from a doctor Hudgens, who the appellant testified had treated one of his claimed disabilities. The doctor responded to the RO's inquiry that he had no patient by the appellant's name. The appellant has not provided the identity of any other private health care provider, and stated at a hearing that no private medical records were available. The RO's duty to assist the appellant to obtain private medical records is discharged. The claims for service connection for hypertension, pseudofolliculitis barbae and bilateral hallux valgus are not well grounded, for the reasons set forth below, and no further development is required regarding them. Id. For reasons set forth below, the claims for service connection for hypercholesteremia and for hyperuricemia are not valid claims for which a benefit may be granted under the law. This finding is based on the appellant's contentions and testimony and the medical evidence received in support of the claim. Murphy v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 78, 81 (1990). Further, the record has been adequately developed for appellate purposes by VARO and we may therefore proceed to a disposition of the appeal on the merits. In our review of claims for increased ratings, the Board considers all of the medical evidence of record, including the appellant's relevant medical history. Peyton v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 282, 285 (1991); Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 589, 595 (1991). The medical findings are compared to the criteria in the VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities. 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (1993). The Board attempts to determine the extent to which a service-connected disability adversely affects the ability of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life, including employment. 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.2, 4.10 (1994). In so doing, we must weigh the evidence before us. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57 (1990). I. BACKGROUND Service medical records contain the appellant's essentially negative medical history of August 1965 on entrance into the service. The physical examination report done at that time noted second degree pes planus, asymptomatic, and a ½ inch scar on the right side of the forehead. His blood pressure was 120/80. On examination in March 1966 to qualify for airborne training, the appellant reported a negative history for foot trouble and any other injuries or diseases of any body part or system. The examiner noted a one inch scar on the right temple. Blood pressure was 120/80. In September 1966, the appellant was seen for complaints of "korns" [sic] on the bottom of the left foot. On February 27, 1969, the appellant was in a motor vehicle accident (MVA). He reported he was beaten by Military Police, who he stated "knocked me out"; he was treated for multiple contusions, including swelling under the left eye. In February 1970 he hurt his right foot playing basket ball. X-ray of the foot found no fracture. In March 1970, he complained of fungus in sections of both feet and was prescribed Tinactin for tinea pedis. In September 1970 he complained of chest pain. His blood pressure was 110/70; chest pain of unknown etiology was diagnosed. On periodic physical examination in November 1970, the appellant was noted to have flat feet, hammer toes and calluses. His blood pressure was 128/90. The physical profile included "1" for lower extremities. Subsequently, in November 1970, the appellant had an MVA in which the car rolled over. He reported about five minutes loss of consciousness and complained of pain in neck, right arm, neck, and chest areas. The diagnoses were multiple contusions and cerebral concussion. He was held for observation for 12 hours then released to duty. The appellant had a physical examination for reenlistment in January 1973. The clinical evaluation section of the report form was left blank. Blood pressure was 110/64. No positive findings were noted. In April 1989, the appellant sought VA outpatient treatment for a "long standing problem with corns on the tops of several toes of each foot and callus formations on the bottom of each foot." He stated he had the problem while in service. Provisional diagnosis was bilateral corns and plantar calluses. His blood pressure was 128/78. On examination in the podiatry clinic, he was observed to have "mild to moderate [illegible] both feet; has bunion deformity." The assessment was "[illegible] 1st and 3rd [illegible] area, both feet." In an attachment to his April 1989 Application for Compensation or Pension, the appellant alleged that his foot problems had caused him to use all of his annual leave and almost all of his sick leave. He did not state how much time lost from work that was. He averred that he had undergone a VA Agent Orange examination at Carl Vinson VAMC in 1982. The appellant had a VA examination in July 1989, including a protocol for complaints based on alleged exposure to Agent Orange. His blood pressure was 130/100 sitting, 130/85 recumbent, and 140/105 standing. His carriage was normal, posture erect, and gait normal. There was a 2 cm well-healed transverse scar in the upper right temple and another scar, 3 cm in length, well healed and non-tender 3 cm inferior to the other. There was also a 4.5 cm diagonal scar on the right cheek with the upper pole at the right commissure of the mouth. The scars were seen as slightly disfiguring. There were numerous papules noted on the shaved area of the face compatible with pseudofolliculitis barbae. There were no pustules, comedones, cysts or vesicles. There were plantar calluses under the heads of the first metatarsal bone and also under the head of the fourth metatarsal bone on both feet. There were calluses noted on the dorsal aspect of the second to third digits of the left foot and also on the dorsum of the third digit of the right foot. There was fourth degree pes planus, bilaterally, and there was also bilateral hallux valgus. The pertinent diagnoses were hypertension, systemic, labile; pseudofolliculitis barbae; tinea pedis, bilaterally, right facial scars as described, plantar calluses as described; bilateral hallux valgus, elevated cholesterol and uric acid. On July 1989 VA neuropsychiatric examination, the appellant complained of headaches since an MVA in 1970, with treatment in service. He reported the headaches had been more or less continuous, but increasing in severity the last few years. He stated he had lost three months from work in the past year because of headaches and feet problems. The examiner commented that "accepting the veteran's history as valid," the diagnosis was post-traumatic headaches. The rating decision of October 1989 denied service connection for hypercholesterolemia and for hyperuricemia. The reason stated by the rating board was that those are laboratory findings and not ratable disabilities. In his substantive appeal of June 1990, the appellant stated he is absent from work two days a month on occasion due to headaches and that he has continuous pain. He stated the marks on his face have constant itching and exudation and that large masses on his face were lanced in Vietnam. He stated he was prescribed medication in service for high blood pressure, which he still takes. He stated that he misses work because of painful corns and calluses of his feet. The appellant testified at a hearing in September 1990. He testified that he was in an MVA in service in which the car fell over a cliff of about 50 feet. He stated he has headaches daily and at night and cannot sleep, and that he had seen Dr. Hudgens twice in the past three years for treatment. He described episodes in which stars appear to descend in front of his eyes and he feels insecure in his balance. He stated that a scar on the right side of his face becomes inflamed and exudes pus every three or four months, and he lances an abscess in it himself. He stated a VA doctor told him nothing could be done for his foot calluses because the skin is too thin, but he trims the thickening callus himself with a razor blade. He stated he suffers such pain in the feet on a rainy or cloudy day that he cannot walk and leaves work. He stated he had no private medical evidence of treatment for any of his claimed disabilities. He stated he does not like doctors and goes very rarely, as can be seen from the small number of service medical records he has for eight years of service. He stated he was treated in Wiesbaden, Germany, for high blood pressure and that he now takes blood pressure medication prescribed by a doctor to "take them as I need them." The appellant stated he was not treated for flat feet in service or during the first year after separation. He said he was treated in service for hallux valgus or hammertoe, which were described by his representative as the same disorder, the big toes riding over the other toes. The appellant attributed rawness between his toes to wearing boots for many days at a time. He said the only treatment he received was to be given razor blades to "take care of it himself," and pads to wear. He also stated he was treated in service for tinea pedis. The representative questioned the appellant about hypercholesterolemia, which he defined as "excessive chloride in the blood." The appellant agreed that he was diagnosed for this in service, and he attributed stomach pain, nausea and vomiting when he ate certain foods to that condition. The representative questioned the appellant about hyperuricemia, which he defined as "excessive abnormal urine flow when you urinate," which the appellant testified happened about once a week or at least once every two weeks. He stated he has a dark yellow urine. On VA examination in October 1992, the appellant complained of bilateral frontal headaches of very mild intensity, but constant since an MVA in 1971. He reported hitting the windshield and having transient loss of consciousness and having stitches over his forehead; he was admitted to the hospital for one night observation for head injury. He stated that about twice a month headaches are very severe, lasting all day, partially relieved by routine analgesics. He reported occasional nausea, vomiting and blurred vision with the severe headaches. Neurologic examination was essentially negative. The impression was possible chronic tension type headache. The examiner felt the headaches could not be secondary to mild head injury in 1971. He doubted whether a mild head injury in 1971 could cause chronic daily headaches after 21 years. On VA examination of the appellant's feet in October 1992, the appellant reported a history of constantly wet feet while in Vietnam in 1969, resulting in development of rashes and calluses, for which he went untreated except for trimming. He continued to have occasional debridement of the calluses after returning to the United States. He stated that since separation he has been seen at a VA medical center, where he was told there was no available treatment but trimming or foot pads. He complained of inability to work due to sore feet. He estimated a loss of 1500 hours of work during the past two years due to foot pain and having to buy special shoes at his own expense. Objectively, the appellant had plantar wart with callus formation in the area of the fourth metatarsal phalangeal (MP) joint, right foot. He had thick calluses about the lateral aspect of the right great toe and the right first MP joint. He had a mild hallux valgus deformity. Both feet had moderate dryness and scaling about the plantar surface and a large amount of maceration along both insoles and scaling in the interdigital spaces. The left foot had a more pronounced hallux valgus deformity. There were also calluses over the lateral aspect of the great toe, lateral first MP joint. There was a plantar wart present in the fourth MP area with callus formation, and also dry scaling skin about the plantar surface in the forestep and maceration in the interdigital spaces. The posture was normal, with no functional abnormalities, and gait was normal. The diagnoses were hallux valgus deformity, bilaterally; dermatitis consistent with tinea pedis, bilaterally, callus formation on the first MP area and lateral great toe, bilaterally; and plantar wart around the third to fourth MP area, bilaterally. On VA examination in January 1993, the appellant reported that he sustained irregular cuts of the forehead and brief loss of consciousness in an MVA in 1970. He reported continuous headaches since, and currently frequently misses work because of them. On objective observation, the examiner saw scars extending from a receding forehead scalp hairline, superficial, mildly hyperpigmented and well healed from suture repair. There was no keloid formation, adherence, herniation. The appellant reported that the right forehead scar "festers and has pus in it" in the summer, for which he had sought private treatment only. He had macular acneiform rash in small irregular areas over the forehead. There was no tenderness or pain objectively demonstrated. The cosmetic effects were described as mildly disfiguring forehead scars extending into receding hairline on the right and left. Other scars lower on the face were stated to be unrelated to the forehead injuries The diagnoses were irregular, well healed traumatic scar extending from right forehead scalp down the right forehead, 10.5 cm long; irregular, well healed traumatic scar extending from left forehead scalp down the left forehead, 6 cm long; scars are mildly hyperpigmented; scars are mildly disfiguring. A diagram of the scars referenced in the examination report is not of record. Color photographic slides are of record. When viewed by the undersigned, the scars described are not all visible; a visible scar on the forehead is just barely so. A small number of rash-like bumps are visible near the hairline. Disfigurement is not apparent. II. ANALYSIS 1. Claims that are Not Well Grounded -- Hypertension, Pseudofolliculitis Barbae, and Hallux Valgus "[A] person who submits a claim for benefits under a law administered by the Secretary [of Veterans Affairs] shall have the burden of submitting evidence sufficient to justify a belief by a fair and impartial individual that the claim is well grounded." 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(a) (West 1991). Hypertension is not shown by any medical evidence of a diagnosis of essential hypertension, which is the disease contemplated by law and regulation as service connectable. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 1112 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (1994). The hearing testimony that the appellant has hypertension is lay evidence regarding a question of medical diagnosis, for which the appellant is not competent to testify, Espiritu v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 492 (1992), and for which evidence of medical diagnosis is a prime criterion of a well-grounded claim. See Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). The VA examination of July 1989 diagnosed labile, not essential, hypertension, i.e., it is not a diagnosis of the disease for which the appellant can obtain service connection, 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (1994), and a claim for service connection for a disease the appellant does not have cannot be well grounded. See Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 141 (1992). Pseudofolliculitis barbae is not shown by complaint, diagnosis, or treatment in the service medical records in evidence. The appellant's testimony that he had that disorder in service is not competent medical evidence. Espiritu, 2 Vet.App. 492. The appellant has not presented any evidence to suggest a connection between the diagnosis first appearing in the record in July 1989 and his period of service. Hallux valgus is not shown by complaint, diagnosis, or treatment in the service medical records in evidence. The appellant's testimony that he had that disorder in service is not competent medical evidence. Espiritu, 2 Vet.App. 492. The appellant has not presented any evidence to suggest a connection between the diagnosis first appearing in the record in July 1989 and his period of service. Whereas the claims for service connection for hypertension, pseudofolliculitis barbae and hallux valgus are not well grounded, the adjudication of those claims on the merits was void ab initio, and should be vacated. Grottveit v. Brown, 5 Vet.App. 91 (1993). 2. Claims that are Invalid as a Matter of Law -- Hypercholesterolemia, Hyperuricemia In Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 426, 430 (1994), the United States Court of Veterans Appeals (Court) commented that The term "well grounded" . . . in the law of veterans' benefits . . . is confined to an evidentiary context . . . . [t]o avoid confusion, in a case . . . where the law and not the evidence is dispositive, the claim should be denied or the appeal to the BVA terminated because of the absence of legal merit or the lack of entitlement under the law. Cf. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) ("failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted"). In view of the statutory origin of the phrase well grounded, it would be legally imprecise, if not incorrect, to apply that phrase and our jurisprudence surrounding it in such a case. The appellant's claims for service connection for hypercholesterolemia and for hyperuricemia are not claims that are amenable to evidentiary analysis under the law. Under the law governing payment of VA disability compensation, the United States shall pay compensation for "disability resulting from personal injury suffered or disease contracted in line of duty . . . ."38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991) (emphasis added). Neither hypercholesterolemia (excess of cholesterol in the blood) nor hyperuricemia (excess of uric acid or urates in the blood) are recognized diseases. The Board is further persuaded that the appellant has not raised any claim cognizable under the law by his subscription in his hearing testimony to his representative's definitions of hypercholesterolemia and hyperuricemia, excessive chloride in the blood, and excessive abnormal urine flow, respectively. The Court has compared the circumstance of an appeal from the denial for a benefit which is based solely on the law and not on the facts or the evidence supporting the allegations to that in which federal civil courts invoke Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) to dismiss a case when a plaintiff has failed to state a claim for which relief can be granted. VA benefit law is not subject to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, but the enabling statutes for the administration of veteran's benefits does provide a close functional equivalent. Further, "The Board of Veterans' Appeals may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed." 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105(d)(5) (West 1991). Where the appellant has appealed from the denial of compensation benefits for phenomena that are not diseases within the meaning of the pertinent statute, 38 U.S.C.A. § 1110 (West 1991), there is no specific allegation of error of fact or law underpinning his appeal. The appeal from the denial of service connection for hypercholesterolemia and for hyperuricemia, consistent with the Court's reasoning in Sabonis, should be dismissed. 3. Service Connection for Plantar Calluses of the Right Foot The service medical record clearly shows that the appellant had calluses on both feet. No such callus was noted on his entrance examination, hence he is presumed sound upon entrance into service as regards them. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b) (West 1994). The appellant is service connected for plantar calluses of the left foot based on the same or equivalent evidence. He currently has plantar calluses of the right foot. All the evidence, including that relating to service, indicates that this is the same condition, and that service connection is warranted for plantar calluses of the right foot. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d) (1994). 4. Service Connection for Bilateral Pes Planus The claim for service connection for bilateral pes planus (flat feet) stands on a different footing than does that for plantar calluses of the right foot. Bilateral pes planus, second degree, was noted on the entrance service examination, therefore the presumption of soundness as to that disorder is rebutted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(b) 1994). The material question is whether the appellant suffered aggravation of bilateral pes planus during service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.306 (1994). The clear preponderance of the evidence is to the contrary. Although pes planus was noted in service medical records, there is no indication that it became worse during service. In July 1989, a VA examiner noted fourth degree pes planus, bilaterally, but there is nothing in the record to support the conclusion that the worsening seen between the appellant's period of service and the finding 16 years later began as an aggravation of the degree of disability during service. Id. The claim must be denied. 5. Increased Rating for Facial Scars The RO grouped together the several service connected scars of the appellant's face. To avoid redundant ratings for a functionally single disability, i.e., pyramiding, 38 C.F.R. § 4.14 (1994). The appellant has testified to periodic exudate from one of his scars, but no such symptoms has been witnessed by any medical practitioner. The testimony that he has avoided seeing physicians or that he cannot produce records for such treatment as he has sought, and that he performs surgery on himself for a recurring condition that causes constant or frequent itching is of limited credibility. The appellant has not been seen to manifest symptoms that he alleges are frequent on either of two examinations. The scars as described in all medical examination descriptions in the record are mildly disfiguring. The photographic slides do not reveal more than slight scars. The Board notes that "disfiguring" is the defining criterion for moderate disablement due to facial scars. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7800 (1994). Deferring to the impression of examiners who may have seen details not apparent in the photographic evidence, the facial scars can be deemed moderate, commensurate with the current 10 percent rating. The clear preponderance of the evidence is against finding severe scars producing marked and unsightly deformity. Id. None of the other diagnostic codes potentially applicable to the appellant's scars are in fact applicable. As noted above, his testimony is not credible evidence of repeated ulceration, and none of the superficial scars are poorly nourished. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7803 (1994). The medical evidence is explicitly adverse to finding the scars tender or painful on objective demonstration, 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic code 7804 (1994), and there is no limitation of function of any other body part to permit application of diagnostic code 7805 for other scars rated based on limitation of function of the part affected. Additionally, none of the other diagnostic codes permits a rating in excess of the currently assigned 10 percent. In sum, an increased rating for facial scars is not warranted. 6. Increased Rating for Post-Traumatic Headaches The appellant's headache disorder is rated by analogy to migraine headaches. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.20 (1994). The rating schedule provides for a 10 percent rating for "characteristic prostrating attacks averaging one in 2 months over the last several months." 38 C.F.R. § 4.124a, Diagnostic Code 8100 (1994) [hereinafter Code 8100]. A 30 percent rating requires evidence of characteristic prostrating attacks occurring on an average one a month over the past several months. Id. The appellant has provided no evidence of time lost from work other than his uncorroborated testimony. He stated at various times that he has lost several months in the past year or loses two days a month "on occasion," which the Board cannot define as a specific amount of time lost over the past several months, Code 8100, so as to make the statement probative evidence of any specific level of disability. The only physician alleged by the appellant to have treated him for headaches denies having a patient by the appellant's name. He has provided no documentation for time lost from work. The Board finds the appellant's testimony lacks credibility to stand alone as evidence of prostrating headaches more often than once a month for the past several months. The failure to seek treatment and the use of common over the counter remedies, which by the appellant's testimony are not effective, is so inconsistent with the alleged severity and frequency of the headaches and the amount of time lost from work as to strain credibility. Standing uncorroborated as it does, the Board concludes such headache attacks as the appellant has are not prostrating with a frequency sufficient for a rating in excess of 10 percent. Weighing the denial of Dr. Hudgens that the appellant has been his patient, the failure to seek any form of treatment for allegedly prostrating headaches, and the lack of any corroboration of time lost from work against the appellant's testimony as to the frequency and character of headaches, the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence to weigh against increasing the rating for headaches above 10 percent. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991). 7. Increased (Compensable) Rating for Tinea Pedis The appellant's tinea pedis is rated by analogy to eczema. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.20 (1994). Eczema is noncompensably disabling "[w]ith slight, if any, exfoliation, exudation or itching, if on a nonexposed surface or small area." A 10 percent rating is warranted "[w]ith exfoliation, exudation or itching constant, if involving an exposed surface or extensive area." A 30 percent rating is warranted "[w]ith exudation of itching constant, extensive lesions, or marked disfigurement." 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7806 (1994) [hereinafter Code 7806]. The October 1992 VA examination found a large amount of maceration and scaling in interdigital spaces, consistent with bilateral tinea pedis. Those findings satisfy the criterion of exfoliation, which is expressed in the disjunctive with the other symptoms, i.e., a positive finding as to exfoliation or exudation or itching warrants a 10 percent rating if involving an exposed surface, which it does not, or an extensive area. Code 7806 does not define "extensive area." Considering the severity of symptoms described, but in an area reasonably described as less than extensive, i.e., the interdigital area, the level of disability described in the examination report more nearly approximates the criteria for the next higher, i.e., 10 percent rating, than it does the noncompensable rating. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (1994). The same evidence of the relationship between severity and area constitutes a preponderance of evidence against finding a rating greater than 10 percent is warranted. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991). 8. Increased (Compensable) Rating for Plantar Calluses of the Left Foot The appellant's plantar calluses are rated as benign new growths of the skin, 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7819 (1994), with analogy to "scars, disfigurement, etc.," rather than eczema. The most appropriate diagnostic code for application is that for "Scars, other," 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7805 (1994), because it provides for rating "on limitation of part affected," Id., whereas the other diagnostic codes for scars more specific as to location of character of the disability to be rated. As of the October 1992 VA examination, the appellant had callus formation to the first MP area and lateral great toe of the left foot with dry scaling skin about the plantar surface. Notably, although the appellant has multiple foot disorders, the functional limitation described is fairly minor. He had normal posture and no functional abnormalities in the foot. The gait, for example, was normal. Such findings were also noted in July 1989. The disability shown by the objective evidence does not rise to a compensable level. The appellant has stated that he is treated for his foot disability at Carl Vinson VAMC, but the RO's request for records shows that he was seen for treatment only on April 6, 1989. He was seen one other time for an examination for compensation purposes. He testified at his hearing that he does not seek treatment for his various disorders because he does not like doctors. In October 1992, the appellant stated that he had lost one thousand five hundred (1500) hours from work in the past two years due to his foot problems. Assuming, for the sake of discussion, that the appellant works 40 hours a week and takes no leave whatsoever, he would work 2080 hours a 52 week year. That amounts to a loss of 36 percent of his working hours due to a single disability, aside from that he also allegedly loses due to headaches. The Board finds it astonishing that the appellant may be losing more than one in every three working hours to a disability for which he has testified he seeks no treatment. Where the appellant has offered no corroboration for such claims, the Board cannot find his allegations of the amount of time lost from work due to calluses of the feet to be credible evidence of the extent of the disability. In short, the preponderance of the evidence is against granting a compensable rating for plantar calluses of the left foot. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107(b) (West 1991). 9. Applicability of Extra-Schedular Rating Whereas the service-connected headaches and bilateral plantar calluses cause relatively little disablement by application of the rating schedule, the question is presented whether the use of the rating schedule is impractical under the circumstances. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (1994). The Board has found that the only evidence of "marked interference with employment," Id., lacks credibility, and therefore the regulation providing for extra-schedular ratings is not for application in this case. Frequent medical attention for these disorders is not claimed or shown. ORDER Well-grounded claims for hypertension, pseudofolliculitis barbae and hallux valgus not having been presented, the claims are dismissed, and the rating decisions of October 1989 and of July 1994 are vacated with respect to those claims. A specific error of fact or law not having been alleged regarding the denial of service connection for hypercholesterolemia and for hyperuricemia, those appeals are dismissed. Service connection for plantar calluses of the right foot is granted. Service connection for pes planus is denied. An increased, 10 percent, rating for bilateral tinea pedis is granted, subject to the regulations governing payment of monetary benefits. Increased ratings for facial scars, post-traumatic headaches and plantar calluses of the left foot are denied. KENNETH R. ANDREWS, JR. 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.