UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 98-363
J OHNNY S PENCE R , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(Argued F ebrua

ry 8, 2000 Dec ided Marc h 13, 2000 )

Thomas P. DeBe rry of

At lanta , G e or g ia , f

or the a pp e lla nt. Darryl A. Joe , with whomL ei g h A

. Bradley , G e n e r a l C o u

n s e l; Ro n G arv in , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and J

a c q u e li n e M

. Sims , Ac t ing D eputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief

, for the a ppellee.
Be fore KRAMER, FARL EY, and IVERS, Judges

. KRAMER, Judge : The a

ppellant, J ohnny

Spencer , appea ls a May

29, 1997, decision of the Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (BV A or B oard) that, inter alia, denied a claim for se rvice connec tion for r esiduals of a rig ht kne e injury (cla im 1) and denied entitlement to an incre ased disability rating for se rvice -conne cted r esiduals of a n injury to the left hand a

nd wrist, cu rr en t ly

rate d as 10% disabling ( claim 2). Rec ord (R.) at 4, 13. The a ppellant has filed a

brief, a nd the Secr etar

y has filed a brie f, an err ata to his brief, and a supplemental authority

. Ora l a rgument was held on Fe bruar y 8, 20 00 . In h is br ie f, the a

pp e lla nt e xplic itl y

a ba nd on e d a ny a pp e a l w ithre sp e c t to tw o o the r c la ims decide d by the BV A, and those claims will thus not be addre ssed by the Court. See Ford v. Gobe r , 10 Ve t.A pp . 5 31 , 5 35 (1 99 7) ; Gr iv ois v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 136, 138 (1994); Bu c k lin ge r v . B ro wn , 5 V e t.A pp . 4 35 , 4 36 (1 99 3) . T his a pp e a l is tim e ly , a

nd the Cour t ha s juri sd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) a

nd 7266(a) . For

the r ea s o n s t hat follow, the Court will aff irm in part and

vacate in part the de cision of the B oard a nd will remand a

matter.2 I . Cl a i m 1 A. I n 1 97 8, the a

pp e lla nt r e e nli ste d in

the U. S. A rmy

fo r a te rm of se rv ic e to e xpir e in Augus t 1985. Supplemental (Su p pl.) R. at 1; R. at 270. Prior to the scheduled e x piration of that ter m of

se rv ic e , th e a

pp e lla nt, e ff e c tiv e F e br

ua ry 14 , 1 98 3, wa s hon or a

bly dis c ha rg e d " a s an a lc oh ol a

bu se reha bilitation failure" on the basis of a urine spec imen that he had pr ovided on Dec ember 6, 1982. R. at 26 8. On

Marc h 8 , 1 98 4, the a

pp e lla nt w a s tr e a te d a

t a VA or tho pe dic c lin ic fo r an in

jur y to h is rig ht knee. R. at 124. At that time, the a ppellant informed the examining phy sician that he had injured his knee two weeks earlier while pl aying ba sketball. R. at 124, 294. L ater that month, the appellant wa s hospitaliz ed for the knee condition and was d i ag nosed with anter omedial rotatory instabilit y of the rig ht knee. R. at 117. I n May 1989, the appe llant rec eived a letter fr om the Depa

rtment o f t h e Army

Boa rd for Correc tion of Milit ary

Records ( Correc tion Boar d) stating that a fa vorable decision had be en made on his application for the corr ection of his milit ary rec ords. R . at 265. The a ppellant was notified that the Corre ction Boa

rd, base d on problems with the urinaly sis that led to his Februa ry 1983 dis c ha rg e fr om t he Ar my , h a d c or

re c te d h is s e rv ic e re c or ds a s f oll ow s: a. by voiding the honor able discha rg e which w as issued to the individual c on c e rn e d o n 1 4 Fe br

ua ry 19 83 , a nd by sh ow ingthat he continued to se rve on ac tive d u ty u n ti l 1 5 A ug u s t 1985 , when he was sepa rate d from the se rvice with an Honora ble Discha

rg e Certific ate, by

rea son of expiration of

term of se rvice , under the provisions of chapte r 4, Army Reg ulation 635-200;
b. by ret urni ngto h im a ll b e ne fi ts a nd pr op e rt y he los t a s th e re su lt o f h is premature discha

rg e; and

c . b y de le tin g fr om h is m ili tary pe rs onnel and med ic a l r e c or ds any and a ll ref ere nces to the ur inaly sis of the specimen he submitt ed on 6 De cembe r 1982. R. at 270-71 (e mphasis added) . Acc ording ly , th e appellant's DD For m 214 now ref

lects that he

serve d on active duty

from Nove mber 1978 to August 1985. Suppl . R. at 1. After rec eiving notice of the actions take n by the Corre ction Boa

rd, the a ppellant submitted to VA a c laim for ser

vice c onnection for residuals of his 1984 rig ht knee injury

. SeeR

. a t2 6 4

. In3

Dec ember

1990, he unde rwe nt a VA or thopedic examination of his rig ht knee. R. at 273. The examiner noted that the a ppellant had state d th at h e had injured his knee in 1984 while playing basketba ll and that he had c omplained t hat t he knee s welled, sti ffe ned, and a ched. R. at 273. After

c on du cting a

ph y sic a l e xami natio n, the e xami ne r d ia g no se d th e a pp e lla nt w ithc ho nd

ro ma la c ia patellae of the rig ht knee with assoc iated ea rly osteoarthr itis. R . at 274. A VA r eg ional office (RO) subsequently

denied the ap p el l an t ' s claim for se rvice connec tion for a r ight kne e condition (R. at 28 4) , a nd the a pp e lla nt t ime ly a pp e a le d th a t de c isi on

(R . at 28 7, 30 4)

. I n July

19 92 , th e a

pp e lla nt, at a hear ing befor e the Boa rd, testified that a doctor

had re cently

opined that his knee c ondition was due to the 1984 injury

. R. at 336. The Boa rd, in a J uly

1993 decision, re manded the matter in order fo r t h e R O t o o b t ai na V A D i s tri ct C o u n s el o r G en er al C o u n s el o p i n i o nas t o wh et h er t h e ap p el l an t 's service betwee n Fe bruar

y 1983 and August 1985 constituted acti v e s er v i ce for pur poses of VA benef its. R. at 347- 48. That rema nd resulted in the May 1994 issuance of VA Gen er al C ounsel Prece dent Opinion 13-94 (Ma y 9, 1994) [hereina fter G .C. Prec. 13-94], which conc luded that the appellan t wa s not in active ser vice at the time of the 1984 knee injury beca use he w as not " under milit ary control" at that time. R at 359. Th e RO su

bs e qu e ntl y

re c e ive d V A m e dic a l r e c or ds date d b e tw e e n 19 84 and 19 94 . T ho se
rec ords re flec t that, in J anuar y 1989, the appellant soug ht treatment for pain and swelling i n his right knee a nd informed the e x aminer t h at h e had injured his knee on the pre vious night while play ing ba sk e tba ll. R. at 41 3. I n M ay 19 89 , th e a

pp e lla nt a g a in s ou g ht t

re a tme nt f

or pa in a nd sw e lli ngin his right kne e. After noting that the appellant had inj ured his knee four day s ear lier whil e jog g ing and had injure d his knee five y ear s ea rl ier while pla ying ba sketball, the examiner diag nosed the appellant with de g ener ative joint disea se and post-traumatic chang es in the medial co l l at eral ligament. R. at 410-11. The VAmedical r ecor ds also ref lect that, in September

1990, the appe llant complained of chronic rig ht knee pain and was diag nosed wit h deg ener ative joint disease of the rig ht knee. R. at 408. Takinginto consideration these additional medical r ecor ds, the RO issued a confirme d rating decision (R. at 456) a

nd a Supplemental Statement of the Case (R. at 463) , and the matter then was

re tu rn edt o t h e B o ar d

. I n t h e B V A d e c i s i o no nap p ea l , t h e B o ar d d et erm i n edt h at t h e ap p el l an t 's

c la im w a s w e ll g ro un de d ( R. at 6) but de nie d th e c la im o n th e me ri ts b e c a us e, accor di ngto G .C.4

Prec. 13- 94, which wa s binding on t h e Bo ar d , t h e appe llant, at the time the 1984 injury occur red, "w as not eng ag ed in ac tive service ." R. at 8-9. This appea l followed. On appe al, the appe llant contends that " active duty " is "a status confe rre d or terminate d by

eac h u n i formed service depar tment" a nd that the Secr etar

y of Ve tera

ns Affa irs does not have

a uth or ity to i nte rp re t th e te rm

" a c tiv e duty ." Ap pe lla

nt' s B ri e f (B r. ) at 4. He fu rt he r c on te nd s th a t, even if the Secr etar

y does have such authority , t h at au t h o rity has not bee n exercised be cause the Secre tary has not promulg ated a

ny regulation refiningthe def inition of active duty

. Id . at 5. Moreove r, the a

ppellant contends that G.C. Prec. 13-94 is violative of 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a) (4), whic h provides that C orre ction Boa rd decisions will be "final and conclusive on all office rs of the U nited States." A

ppellant' s Br . at 6. In conclusion, he a sserts that, bec ause the service dep ar t m ent has aff orded the appellant " active duty " status on the date of the 1984 knee injury , and beca use the injury

w a s n o t d

u e t o m i s c o n d

u c t , h e i s e n t i t l e d t o s e r v i c e c o n n e c t i o n f

o r r e s i d u a l s o f t h a t i n j u r y. Appellant' s Br . at 7. The Sec reta

ry responds that , even though the Sec reta ry is bound by

service depar

tment

rec ords establishing whether an individual was on a ctive duty , and is b o u n d b y Correc tion Boar d finding s as t o active duty status, the S ecr etar y is never theless permitt ed to determine whethe r that status re nd e rs a

c la ima nt e lig ibl e fo r V A b e ne fi ts. Se c re tary ' s B r. a t 14 -1 5. Th e Se c re tary a sse rt s that he has authority to construe the term "ac tive duty " a nd has done so throug h G.C. Prec. 13- 94. He a sserts that, pursua n t to G.C. Prec. 13-94, which is binding on the B oard (see 38 U. S.C. § 7104(c) ; 38 C.F.R. § 19.5 (1999)), the appellant' s active duty status at t he time of the injury does not rende r him elig ible for be nefits bec ause he was not under milit ary control at the time of the 1984 injury . Secre tary ' s Br . at 12-14. B. Ba sic entitlement of vete rans to compe nsation for ser vice- connec te d

d is a b il it ie s d e r iv es fr om 38 U.S.C. § 1131, which provides, in part: " For disability resulting from per sonal injury suffe red . . . in line of dut y . . . in the active m ilitar y, naval, or air servic e , during other than a period of w ar, the Un ite d St a te s w ill pa y to a ny ve te ra n th us dis a ble d .

. . c omp e nsat ion a s p ro vid e d in thi s
su bc ha pte r. " 38 U. S.C. § 1 13 1 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se e als o Caluz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 505 (1995) ( service connec tion for VA disability compensation purposes will be awarde d to vetera n for5

disease or injury incurre d in vetera n' s active se rvice ), aff'

d per curiam , 78 F.3d 604 (F ed. Cir. 1996) (table) . The ter

m "a ctive military , naval, or air service" is defined to include, inter alia, " active duty ." 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 4) ; see 38 C.F .R. § 3 .6 (a ) ( 19 99 ); se e als o 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 0 1 ( 2 1 ) ( " a c t i v e d u t y" includes full-time duty in the Armed For ces, other than active duty for tra ining) ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(b) (1999). I n t h e pre sent ca se, the B VA, noting that it was bound by G.C. Prec. 13- 94, denied the appellant' s claim beca

use it found that he " was not eng ag ed in ac tive service " a t the time of the 1984 injury . R. at 9. The dispute in the present case cente rs on that deter mination, and thus nec essitates

an e xa mi n a ti o n o f th e v a li d it y o f G

. C. Pr e c
. 1 3

- 9 4. See 38 U.S .C. § 7 10 4( c ); Sm ith v . W est , 11 Ve t.A pp . 1 34 , 1 36 (1 99 8) (B VAis b ound by VA Ge ne ra l Co un se l pr e c e de nt o pin ion s) ; 38 C.F .R. § 19.5. I n G .C. Pr e c . 1 3- 94 , th e VAGe ne ra l Co un sel a c kn ow le dg e d th a t, p ur su ant t o 1 0 U .S. C. § 1552(a) (1), " the sec reta ry of a military

depar tment may

corr ect a

ny milit ary re cord of

that de pa rtme nt whe n h e or

sh e c on sid e rs it n e c e ssa

ry to correct

an e rr or or re vie w a n in jus tic e " ; th a t, under 10 U .S.C. § 1552(a)(4) , "a corr ection is ' final and c onclusive o n al l o ff i ce rs of the U nited States,' unless it was procur ed by fra ud"; a nd that "V A must acc ept the ac tion of a mil itary corr ection board a s long a s it was in a ccor dance with the corr ection boar d' s authority and wa s not procure d by fra ud." R. at 354-55 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(4) ). In finding t h at the veter an wa s not in the active se rvice at the time of his 1984 injury , the VA Gene ral Couns el reasoned that "c orre ction board actions ar e binding only

as to the fa cts found, not as to entitlement based on those fac ts," a nd that VA ther efor e has "the a uthority to determine e ntitlement to veterans' benef its based on the application of the law to those fa cts." R. at 355. The VA G ener al Counsel then conc luded, base d

on a revie w of various Attorney Gene ral and VA opinions dated fr om 1855 throug h 1983 reg arding wh a t c on sti tut e s a c tiv e se rv ic e , th a t the veter an . . . wa s not in the active ser vice at the time injury was incurre d in March 1984, beca

use, althoug h the veter an' s active duty status was subseque ntly

extended until Aug u s t 1 5 , 1 9 8 5 , th e v e te r anw a s n o t u n d e r mi li ta r y c o n tr o l, h a v in g r e c e ive d a dis c ha rg e and re tur ne d to c ivi lia

n p ur su its , and , the re fo re , w a s n ot a va ila ble to perf orm milit ary duties betwee n Fe bruar y 14, 1983, the orig inal date o f d ischarg e, and August 15, 1985.
R. at 35 9. Ac c or din g ly , G .C. Pr e c . 1 3- 94 he ld t he fo llo wi ng :6

Se rv ic e c onne c tio n may no t be es ta bli sh e d for a dis a

bil ity inc ur

re d fol low ingthe date o nwh i ch a v et er an wa s d i s ch ar ged fr o m ac t i v e m i l i t ary d u t y , al t h o u ght h e d i s ch ar ge was subseque ntly

voided and f

ull active-duty

c r e d it grante d by

a B oard f or Corre ction of Military

Records to a

date a fter the date on whic h injury occ u rr ed , b ecause the veter an wa s not eng ag ed in ac tive service at that time.
R. at 359-60. The a ppellant ar g ues, inter a lia, that G.C. Prec. 13- 94 is incon s istent with the dictates of 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(4) (" Ex cept whe n procur ed by fra ud, a cor rec tion under this section is final and conclusive o na ll o f

f ic e r s o f th e U n it e d

St a te s
. " )

. H o w e v e r , b e c a u s e th e Co u rt h o ld s o nother g rounds that G.C. Prec. 13- 94 is invalid, the Court, in r eac hing its de cision, need not a ddress to what extent, if any , 1 0 U. S

. C

. § 1552(a) (4) limits the ability of VA to promulg ate r egulations that, for purposes of V A bene fits, may conflict with that section. Specific ally , the Court holds that G.C. Prec. 13 -9 4 is inv a lid

be c a us e , to the ama zem e nt o f the Court , that pre c e de nti a l opin ion tot a lly ig no re s, and is in patent conf

lict with, 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 (1999) and the C ourt' s longstandinginterpre tation of that r e g ulatio n ( wh ic h h a s b e e n f re qu e ntl y re lie d u po n b y the Se c re tary in pr oc e e din g s be fo re thi s Court to demonstrate lac k of entitlement for those not ha ving r ecor ds require d by

that regulation). Simpl y put, the Court has held that, pursua nt to 38 C.F.R. § 3.203, "se rvice depar tment findings a

re bi nd in g on VA for

pu rpo ses of es tab li sh in g serv ice in th e U. S . Ar medForces ." Duro v. De rwinski , 2 Ve t.A pp . 5 30 , 5 32 (1 99 2) ; se e So ria v . B ro wn , 118 F.3d 747 (F ed. Cir.), cert. de nied , 552 U.S. 958 (1 99 7) ; Cah all

v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A

pp . 2 32 , 2 37 (1 99 4) ; se e als o 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(e) (1999) (" honorable discharg e or discharg e under honor able c onditions i ssued throug h a boar d for c orre ction of re cords e stablished under a uthority of 10 U.S.C. [ §] 1552 i s final and c onclusive on [VA]"). I n th e ins tant c a se , th e Correcti on B oa rd de te rm ine d th a t th e a

pp e lla nt h a d " c on tin

ue d to

serve on active duty

until 15 Aug ust 1985" (R. at 270), a nd the appe llant's D D For

m 214 refle cts that he s e r v e d o n a c t i v e d

ut y f r o m N o v e mb e r 1 9 7 8 t o A u g u s t 1 9 8 5 ( S u p p l

. R

. a t 1 )

. B e c a

u s e V A i s bo un d by tho se se rv ic e de pa rt me nt f ind ing s ( see D uro and Cah all , both su pra ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a)) , the C o u rt c o n c lu d e s th a t t h e B V A ' s f

in d in g th a t t

h e a p p e ll an t " w a s n o t e n g a g e d in a c ti v e s e r

v ice" at the time of his 1984 rig ht knee injury , and G.C. Prec . 13-94 upon which t h at findi ng was predic ated, a

re inc onsistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.203, as interpre ted by the Court in Du ro , s up ra . See7

Sa bo nis v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 426, 429 (1994) (Court is not bound by prec edent opinions of the VA Gene ral Counsel). C. Although the BV A, in t h e d ec i sion on appea l, determined that claim 1 was we ll gr ounded

and a dju dic a te d th e c la im o n th e me ri ts, the Court , a ft e r d e novo revi ew of the re c or d o n a pp e a l, conclude s that the appellant's c laim is not well grounde d. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) (" a per son who submits a claim for bene fits under a law administere d by

the Secr etar

y shall h av e t h e b u rden of

su bmi tti nge vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nt to just if

y a be lie f b y a fa ir and imp art ia l in div idu a l th a t th e c la im i s
we ll g ro un de d" ); Ro bin e ttev . B ro wn , 8 Ve t.A pp
. 69 , 73 (1 99 5) (d e te rm inatio n w he the r a c la im i s well g rounded is subjec t to de novo revie w by this Court). There is simpl y no medical e vidence of

rec ord etiolog ically

linking a pr esent rig ht knee c ondition to the 1984 injury

. Se e Caluz a , 7 Vet.App. at 506 (we ll -grounded service -conne ction claim g ener ally require s medical e vidence of a c urre nt disability ; medical or, in c erta in circumstanc es, lay evidenc e of in-service incurre nce or ag g ravation of a dis ea s e o r i n

j ury ; and medica l evidence of a ne x us betwee n the claimed in- service disease or i n j u r y an d t h e c u r r e n td i s a b ili ty ); s ee a l

so Epps v. Gobe r , 126 F.3d 1464, 1468 ( Fe d. Cir. 1997) (adoptingthis Court' s definition of well-g rounded se rvice -conne ction claim as set f orth in Caluza,

su pra ), cert. de nied , 118 S.Ct

. 2348 (1998). I n this reg ard, the Court concludes that the VA medica l

re c or ds date d in

19 89 (R . at 41 0- 13 ), wh ic h r e fl e c t dia g no se s of de g e ne ra tiv e c ha ng e s and a po sttraumatic disorde r of the right knee, and which specific ally ref ere nce r ight kne e injuries occ urring afte r the 1984 injury , do not c onstitut e the requisite medical ne x us evidenc e. Cf. Ho dges v . W est , __ Vet.App. __, __, No. 98- 1275, slip op. at 5 (J an. 12, 2000), (" Be cause the two events of le ft-knee trauma c ontained in the [record on appea l ( ROA)] that oc curr ed in se rvice are the only episodes of left-kne e tra

uma containe d in the ROA

. . . , and bec ause the phy sician who diag nosed the ve tera n as havingpost-traumatic a rthritis of the knee mentioned those two i n -service tra umas and wa s appar ently

awa re of no other e vent (s ) o f left- knee tr auma, the Court holds that the ve tera n has submi tt e d th e me d ic a l e v id e n c e o f

a n e xu s b e tw e e nth e v e te r an ' s s e r v ic e an d h is c u r r e n t l e f t- knee dis a bil ity that is ne e de d to we ll g ro un d t hi s cla im .") . T he a pp e lla nt' s c la im i s thus no t w e ll g rounded.8

Neve rtheless, the Court c oncludes that, in lig ht of the appellant' s testimony befor e the B VA that a doctor

had told him that his current knee problems are related to the 1984 injury (R. at 336), and in light of

VA' s failure to advise the a ppellant to obtain a statement from that doctor, a rema nd i s n e c e s s ar

y i no r d e r f o r t h e B o ar d

t o e n s u r e c o mp l i an c e w i t h t h e 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 5 1 0 3 ( a ) d u t y t o n o t i f

y. Se e Ro bin e tte , 8 Vet.App. at 80 (Court held that wher e cla imant had not submitt ed we ll-g rounded claim and " the Secr etar

y was on notice that rele vant evidenc e may have e x isted, or could have been obtai n ed , t h at , i f true, would have made the claim ' plausible' and that such e vidence had not bee n submitt ed w it h th e a p p li c a ti o n , " the n that application wa s "inc omplete," and Secr etar y had oblig ation

un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 (a) to no tify c la ima nt o f e vid e nc e ne c e ssa

ry to c omp le te a

pp lic a tio n) ; see also McK n i ght v. Gober , 1 31 F .3 d 1 48 3, 14 85 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 7) (s pe c if ic a lly a g re e ingwi th t

his Court's holdingin Ro bin e tte interpre ting section 5103(a) ). Acc ording ly , the Court will vacate the B oa rd ' s d e c isi on

wi th r e sp e c t to c la im 1 and re mand that matte r fo r re a dju dic a tio n c on sis te nt w ith this opini on. See Me

y e r v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 425, 430 ( 1996) (" [u] nder se ction 5103(a) , the application will rema in open and the veteran may submit further evidenc e during the one -y ear period fo llo wi ngthe Se c re tary ' s n oti fi c a tio n to the ve te ra n of the ne e d for me dic a l evi de nc e of ne xus o f h is dis a bil ity to s e rv ic e " ); Ro bin e tte , s up ra ; se e als o Fran k

lin v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 190, 192- 93 (1993) (vac ating and re manding beca use B oard de cision and VA G ener al Counsel Prece dent Opinion upon which B oard r elied we re inc onsistent with VA regulations).

I I . Cl a i m 2 Withre g ard

to c la im 2 , th e a

pp e lla nt argue s, on a

pp e a l, on ly

that he is e nti tle d to a

dis a bil ity ratingin excess of 10% due to pa in involved in the motion and functional use of his wrist. As the Se c re tary ind ic a te s in

his br ie f, pa in c ann ot b e the ba sis fo r a n a wa rd un de r a dia g no sti c c od e in excess of the maximum evaluati o n u n der that code. Se e J oh ns ton v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 80, 85 (1 99 7) (e ve n th ou g h th e re wa s e vid e nc e that the a pp e lla nt h a d s ome fu

nc tio na l lo ss d

ue to p a in i n his wr ist , a

re mand fo r the B VA to c on sid e r f un c tio na l lo ss d

ue to p a in w a s n ot a

pp ro pr iate be c a

us e the appe llant was alre ady rec eiving the maxim um disabilit y ratingavailable under 38 C.F .R. § 4.71a, Di a g no sti c Cod e (D C) 52 15 (1 99 9) fo r l imi tatio n o f m oti on of the wr ist ). He re , th e a

pp e lla nt' s w ri st disability is curre ntly

rate d 10% disabling under D C 5215. Se e als o 38 C.F.R

. § 4.71a, DC 50039

(d e g e ne rativ e art

hr iti s is rate d o n th e ba sis of lim itatio n o f m oti on

un de r t he a pp ro pr iate dia g no sti c codes f or the specific joint involved), 5010 (ar thritis due to trauma is rate d as deg ener ative ar thritis). Be cau s e 1 0 % i s t h e m ax i m u m ra t i n g u n d er DC 5 2 1 5 , t h e ap p el l an t i s n o t en t i t l ed t o a h i gh er ra t i n g,
eve n t houg h there is evidence of re cord r efle cting that the appe llant has pain on movement. See J oh ns ton , s up ra ; 38 C.F .R. § 4 .7 1a , D C 50 03 , 5 01 0, 52 15 ; s e e a l s o S a b o nis , 6 Ve t

. Ap p. at 430 (whe re la w and not evide nce is dispositive, claim should be denied or appea l terminated be cause of l ac k o f l ega l m er i t ). I n ad d i t i o n , t h e re co rd i s d ev o i d o f an y ev i d en ce re fl ec t i n g t h e s y mp t o m at o l o gy
n ec es s ary fo r a rat i n g i nex ce s s o f 1 0 % u n d er 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 4

. 7 1 a, DC 5 2 1 4 (1 9 9 9 ) ( p ro v i d i n g ra t i n gs betwee n 20% and 50% for a nky losis of the wrist). Fur ther, in the absenc e of any evidenc e of r ecor d that the appellant's service -conne cted residuals of an injury to the left hand a

nd wrist cause "suc h an

e xce pti on a l or

un us ua l disab ili ty

pic tur e wi th s uc h r e late d f a c tor s a s ma

rk e d in te rf

e re nc e wi th employ ment or fr equent pe riods of hospital i z at i o n as to rende r imprac tical the application of the

re g ula r s c he du lar s tand ard s, " 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 21 (b )( 1) (1 99 9) , a ny e rr or c omm itt e d b y

the B VAin faili ng to c onsider the potential applicability of an extraschedular rating was nonprejudicia l. See Fisher v. Principi , 4 Ve t.A pp . 5 7, 60 (1 99 3) (i n the a

bs e nc e of e xce pti on a l or

unus ua l c ir c ums tanc e s, Boa rd' s failure to consider e x trasche dular rating would be nonprejudicia l).

III. Conclusi on Up on c on si d e r a t i o no f

t h e f o r e g o i n g , t h e M ay

2 9 , 1 9 9 7 , B V A d e c i s i o nw i t hr e s p e c tto claim 1 is VACATED a

nd that matter is REMANDED f or proce eding s consistent with this opi nion. The B oard' s decision is otherwise A FF I RMED.