UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 04-1384
R EG I S J. B Y RD , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , 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
(De cided De cembe r 23, 2005 )
Mark R. Lippman , o f L a

Jolla , Ca lif

or nia , w a s o n th e ple a din g fo r t he a pp e lla nt.
Tim Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Joan E. Moriarty, Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and David L. Quinn , all of Washingt o n , D.C., were on the pleadingfor the a

ppellee.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and KASOL D and MOO RMAN, J ud ge s. MOORMAN, Judge : The appe llant, vetera n Reg is J . By

rd, ap p ea ls, through c ounsel, a July 21 , 2 00 4, decis io n of the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) t hat de nie d V A d isa

bil ity compensation for g um disease. She argues that VA regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a) , which pre cludes

c omp e ns a tio n f

or se rv ic e -c on ne c te d p e ri od on ta l di se a se (a lso kn ow n a s g um dis e a se ), c on fl ic ts w ith 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131, the s tatutory provisions authorizing VA disability compensation for disabiliti es re sulting fr om an injury suffe red or

disease c ontrac ted in the line of dut y , or for ag g ravation of a pre exis ting injury suffe red or

disease c ontrac ted in the line of duty , in active se rvice

. Appel la n t' s B r ie f ( A p p
. B r
. ) a t 2

- 5

. T h e Se c r e ta r y ar g u e s th at, p u r s u an t t o th e r a ti n g s c h e d ule, periodontal disea se is not considere d to be a disabling condition. Secre tary (Sec' y ) B r. at 4-8. For the re asons set for

th below, the Court will affir m the J uly

2004 Boa

rd dec ision.2 I. Re le va nt Bac kgr ound Ms. By rd served on active duty in the U.S

. Air Force from August 1952 to November 1953, Marc h 1981 to June 1987, Novembe r 1987 to Marc h 1988, and fr om J une 1990 to September 1990. Re c or d ( R.) a t 8- 11 ; see R. at 2. She had additional ser vice with the Na

val R eser ve. R. at 8-11. Her J uly and August 1952 enlistment medical e x aminations did not revea l any dental proble ms. R. at 14-21. He r ser

vice medic al rec ords (SMRs) showe d delay ed hea ling of her gums after

an Oc tober 1952 tooth ex trac tion. R. at 22. During a November 1953 dental examination it was discove red that Ms. By rd wa s m i s s i n g s i x teeth and ha d two other tee th capa ble of re storation. R. at 24. A J une 1973 annual Na

val Reser ve denta l examination report reve aled that all of her upper te eth had be en
re pla c e d b y

de ntu re s and that sh e wa s mi ssi ng si x lo we r t e e th. R. at 32 ; se e als o , e.g. , R. at 48 (showing same de ntal information on J une 1977 examination re p o rt ), 96 (showing e ssentially the

same de nta l in fo rm a tio n in 19 92 ). A Marc h 198 6 SMR re c or de d tha t Ms . B y rd ha d r e po rt e d th a t a tooth ex trac tion 15 y ear s ear lier had le d to excessive bleeding . R. at 73-74. I n Decem b er

2 0 0 0 , M s
. By

rdfi l eda c l ai m fo r V A o u t p at i en tt re at m en tan d

s er v i ce -c o n n ecte d compensation for g um disease. R. at 99. In October 2001, a VA r eg i o n al o ff

i ce (RO) denie d her

c lai m for com pensa tio n o n th e ba sis that pe ri od onta l di se a se , c la ime d a s g um d ise a se , is no t a disabling c ondition but t hat her g um diseas e m ay b e considere d service connec ted solely for the purpose of

VA dental examination or outpatient dental treatment. R. at 112- 13. She appea led to the Boa rd. R. at 121-22 , 1 2 4 -4 2 , 1 4 4 . Following the re ceipt of a dditional evidence , the RO issued a Supplemental Statement of the Case , ag ain explaining that per iodontal disease is not a condition for which VA pay s c o mp e n s a ti o n
. R. a t 1 5 3

. T h e RO a ls o n o te d th a t i nJa n u ar

y 2 0 0 1 a c o p y o f h er dental cla im was sent to the VA Medic al Center in Ha mpton, Virg inia, and that she should conta ct that fac ility

for a ny dental tre atment. R. at 153. On J uly 21, 2004, the B oard issued the decision on appe al. R. at 1-4. The Boa rd dete rmined that, u nd e r t he law a dmi nis te re d b y VA, g um d ise a se is n ot a dis a bil ity fo r w hic h V A d isa

bil ity compensation is pay able. R. at 2-4. Citing 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a) , the B oard note d that periodontal

or g um d ise a se wi ll be c on sid e re d se rv ic e c on ne c te d s ole ly fo r t he purp os e of

e sta bli sh inge lig ibi lity for outpatient de ntal treatment. R. at 3. The B oard a lso stated:3

Whi l e t h ere is evidence in service of dela y ed hea ling of

the g ums, following e xtra c tio n of some te e th, g um d ise a se wa s n ot d oc ume nte d d ur ingse rv ic e and

it i s not clear that the veter an cur

rently has g um diseases. In any

event, gum disease is not a disability

for which compensation may be paid so [sic] t he pre sent claim must be denied be cause of the a

bsence of leg al merit.
R. at 4. Th e B oa

rd fu rt her no te d th a t a

c la im f or se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or a de nta l di so rd e r i s a lso considere d a cla im for VA outpatient dental treatment a nd stated that the claim for outpatient dental treatment had bee n ref

err ed by the RO to the appropr iate VA me dical ce nter. R. at 2. On a pp e a l, t he a pp e lla nt' s so le argume nt i s th a t th e B oa rd e rr e d in rely in g o n 38 C.F .R. § 3

. 3 8 1 ( a ) t o d e n y h e r c l a i m f o r V A c o mp e n s a t i o n
. S h e c o n t e n d s t h a t § 3

. 3 8 1 ( a ) c on fl ic ts w ith 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110 and 1131, the statutory provisions that a uthorize VA to compensate veter ans for their disabilities. App. Br . at 2-5. She a sserts that " d i s abil ity " me ans " impairment in ear ning capa city resulting from such disease or injuries" but that § 3.381(a) cate g orical l y d isallows

c o mp e n s a t i o nf

o r c e rt a i n d e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e i r e f

f e c t o n a v e t e r an ' s e ar

n i n g c a p a c i t y. App. B r
. a t 4 ( qu o ti n g 3 8 C. F

. R. § 4

. 1 ( 2 0 0 4 ) )

. Sh e a ls o n o te s th a t th e Se c r e ta r y f a il s to g iv e any
ratio na le fo r the re g ulator y re str ic tio n excl ud ing g um d ise a se and that th e omi ssi on

is s ig nif ic a nt i n light of the Secre tary ' s having once considere d simil ar dental disabiliti es compensa ble. App. B r. at 5 (c i t i n g Manio v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 140, 145 ( 1991)). Re ly ing on Si mi ng ton v . W est , th e Se c re tary

c ounte rs that pe ri od on ta l di se a se is n ot a d i s ab l i n g co n d i t i o n
. S ec 'y Br

. at 4 -6 (c i t i n g Simington , 11 Vet.App. 41 ( 1998)). He argues that the

s ch edu l e o f r at i n gs u n d er

3 8 C

. F. R

. § 4

. 1 5 0 s et s fo rt h t h e c o n d i t i o n s t h at ar e c o n s i d er ed"d i s ab l i n g"

and that pe ri od on ta l di se a se is n ot i nc lud e d b ut, ins te a d, is e xclu de d w ithan e xplanatio n th at it i s not considere d to be a disabling condition. Sec' y Br . at 7. H e al s o argue s that his authority for pr omu lg a tin g § 3 .3 81 lie s n ot i n th e statut or y pro vi sions c ite d b y

the a pp e lla nt b ut i n 3 8 U .S. C. § 1712, which provide s the eligibility require ments for VA outpatient treatment of dental c onditions and disabilities. Sec' y

Br . at 6-7. I n reply , the appe llant contends that the Court' s decision in Simington is not controlling beca use it addre ssed only

the issue of ser

vice c onnection for

the purpose of

rec eiving VA outpatient de nta l tr e a tme nt a

nd did no t a dd re ss s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n o f g um dis e a se fo r the purp os e of dis a bil ity compensation. Reply

at 1. The a

ppellant furthe r conte nds that the Secr etar y ' s ref ere nce to se ction4

1712 contra dicts his posit ion becau s e (1 ) i t provides for VA tre atment of a

dental condition eve n though the condition is not di sabling , 38 U.S.C. § 1712(a)(1) (B ), and ( 2) it does not a uthorize the Se c re tary to p ro mul g a te re g ulatio ns re str ic tin g or e xclu din g c e rt a in de nta l c on dit ion s fo r the purp os e of compe nsation or disability rating . Reply

at 2. II. Ana lys is This Court's jurisdiction is describe d in 38 U.S.C. § 7252(b): (b) Revie w in the Court shall be on the re cord of proce eding s befor e the Sec reta ry a nd t h e B o ar d

. T h e e xt e n t o f t h e r e v i e w s h a l l b e l i m i t e d t o t h e s c o pe pr ov ide d in section 7261 of this title. The Court may not reviewthe s ch ed ule of ratings for dis a bil iti e s a do pte d un de r se c tio n 11 55 of thi s ti tle or

any a c tio n o f t

he Se c re tary

in adopting or re vising that sche dule.
38 U. S.C. § 7 25 2( b)

. Se c tio n 1 15 5 o f t itl e 38 , U .S. Cod e , p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art : The Sec reta

ry shall adopt and a

pply a sche dule of ratings of r eductions in ea rning capa city from spec ific injuries or c ombination of injuries. The rating s shall be base d, as fa r as pr actica

ble, upon the ave rag e impairments of e arningcapa city resultin g from su c h in jur ie s in c ivi l oc c up a tio ns
. 38 U. S.C. § 1 15 5. Se c tio n 1 11 0 o f t itl e 38 , U .S. Cod e , p ro vid e s, in p e rt ine nt p art : For disability resulting from per sonal injury suffe red or

disease contra cted in line of du ty , o r f

or a g g ra vatio n o f a pr e e xistin g inj ur y su ff e re d o r d ise a se c on tr a c te d in line of duty , in the active military , naval, or air ser vice, dur ing a

period of w ar, the United States will pay

to any veter an thus disabled and w ho was discharg ed or rele ased unde r conditions other than dishonora b le from the pe riod of ser

vice in which said injury

or disease was incurre d, or pree x isting injury or disease was a g g ravated, compensation as provided in this subc hapter , but no compensation shall be pa id if the disability is a re sult of the person’ s own wilful misconduct or abuse of alc ohol or dr ug s. 38 U. S.C. § 1 11 0; see 38 U.S.C. § 1131 (simi lar provision for peac etime disability

compensation). Section 7252(b) remove s from this Court' s jurisdiction a ll r eview involving the content of the rating schedules and the S ecr etar y ' s actions i n adopting or revising them. See W anner v. Princ ipi , 370 F.3d 1124, 1130 ( Fe d. Cir. 2004). The U.S. Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) in W

anner stated: "[T]he schedule of ratings consists of bot h the ratings and the injuries for which the r ating s are provided. The Secre tary ' s discretion over the sche dule, including proce dures5

followed a

nd content sele cted, is insulated fr om judicial review with one re cog nized ex ception li mi ted to con st it ut io nal chal len ges." W anner , 370 F.3d at 1131. I n W anner , the Fe dera l Circuit held that this C ourt lacke d jurisdiction to revie w the conte nt of 38 C.F.R. § 4.87a, D iag nostic Code (DC) 6260 (1998) , the provision of the rating sc hedule that assig ns a 10% disabili ty rating for "Tinnitus: Persistent as a sy mptom of head injury , concussion or

acou st ic t raum a." W

anner , 37 0 F .3 d a t 11 30 -3 1. Th e a pp e lla nts in that c a se ha d argue d th a t be c a us e the trauma require ment of DC 6260 limit ed the pa y ment of bene fits to only

cer tain veter ans suffe ring from ser vice- connec ted tinnitus, t he provision dre w distinctions that were imper missibl e un d er section 1110' s mandate r equiring the United States to pay benef it s "t o an y

veter an thus disabled." Id. at 1128. The F eder al Circuit held that this Court, pursuant to se ction 7252(b), lac ked jurisdiction to r e v i e w t h e r a t i n g s c h e d u l e f o r c o mp l i an c e w i th t h e s t a t u t o r y a u t h o r i t y u n d e r w h i c h d i sabil ity compensation is paid, 38 U.S.C. § 1110, and thus lacked jurisdiction to invalidate the pre -1999 DC 6260 trauma r equire ment as inconsistent with section 1110. W anner , 370 F. 3 d at 1129-31. The Fe dera l Circuit there found " impermissible" this Court's "dire ct review of the content of the rating schedule " a

nd conclude d that it was " indisti ng uishable fr om the revie w of ' wh a t s h o u ld be considere d a di sab il it y .'" Id. at 1 1 3 1 (q u o t i n g W anner v. Princ ipi , 17 Vet.App. 4, 14- 15 (2003))

. But see Se lle rs v. Principi , 372 F .3 d 131 8, 13 24 (F e d. Cir . 200 4) (h old ing that Cour t had jur isd ic tio n to e nte rt a in challeng e to VA inter

pretation of 38 C.F.R. § 4.130). The pa rties do not dispute that VA re g ulations ex clude f rom VA c ompensation the condition at i s s u e h ere. Whil e Ms. B y rd cites to 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a ), the e ssence of her argument, as the

re g ulator y his tor y of § 3 .3 81 (a ) a

nd § 4 .1 50 be low sh ow s, is a c ha lle ng e to t

he c on te nt o f 3 8 C. F .R. § 4.150, which does not list periodontal disease as a disability or a compensa ble disability and which

co n ta in s a N o te s tati n g th a t lo s s o f th e a lv e o la r p r o c e s s a s a r e s u lt o f p e r io d o n ta l d is ease "is not considere d disabling." The appellant' s challeng e would re quire the Court to re view the c ontent of

a rating- schedule regulation, which re view the Court ca nnot undertake , see W

anner , su pra , and not simply to interpret i t s provisions. See Se lle rs , 3 72 F .3 d at 13 24 (c on c lud ingthat a pp e lla nts ' argument ch al l en ged VA's inter pretation of regulation § 4.130 (" Schedule of rating s – mental disorders" ), spec ifical l y t h e relationship between the DSM-I V (D I AGNOS TI C AND S TATI S TI C AL M A N U A L OF M EN T A L D I SORD ERS , 4th ed.) and the gene ral rating formula). Eve n though Ms. B y rd6

raises this ar g ument for the first time on a ppeal to the Court, we "ma y hear leg al ar g uments raised for th e fi rst ti m e w i t h regard t o a cl aim th at i s p rop erl y befo re t he [ C] ou rt ." Ma gg itt v . W

est , 202 F.3d 1370, 1377 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000). The Court has a duty to "de cide a ll releva

nt questions of law, interpre t constituti onal, statutory , and re g ulatory provisions, and deter

mine t h e m eaning or

a pp lic a bil ity of the te rm s o f an a c tio n of the Se c re tary ." 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 1) ; see e .g. , Da v e np or t

v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A

pp . 476 (1 99 5) ; Tal lm an v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 4 53 (1 99 5) ; Gardner v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 584 ( 1991), aff 'd su b n om . G ar

dn e r v . B ro wn , 5 F. 3 d 1 4 5 6 (Fed. Cir. 1993), a ff 'd , 513 U.S. 115 (1994). Re g ulatio n § 4. 15 0 is e nti tle d " Sc he du le of rat ing s– de nta l and or a l c on dit ion s" and

lis ts disabiliti es with assig ned DCs, DC 9900 throug h DC 9916. DC 9913 provides rating c riteria a nd disability perc entag es for

loss of teeth. 38 C.F.R. § 4.150, DC 9913 (2005). DC 9913 is assig ned for loss o f t ee t h as a re sult of "loss of substanc e of body of maxil la or mandible w ithout los s of

c on tin uit y " and pr ov ide s, wh e re the los t ma sti c a tor y su rface c ann ot b e re sto re d b y su ita ble prosthesis, for a rang e of rating s from 10% to 40% , and also provides, whe re the loss of masticatory surfa ce can be restore d by suitable prosthesis, for a 0% di sability rating

. Id. Th e No te a

pp e nd e d to that DC rea ds: "NO TE–These rating s apply on l y t o b o n e l o ss throug h trauma or disease suc h as osteomy elitis, and not to the loss of the alveolar proce ss as a re sult of periodontal disease, sinc e such loss is not considered disabling ." I n the instant case , there is no evidence that bone loss was the

cause of Ms. By

rd' s loss of teeth. I ndeed, she conce des that her loss was the res u lt of periodontal disease. Th e re g ulator

y his tor y of § 4. 15 0 sh ow s that pr ior to 19 94 that r e g ulatio n li ste d ( be low a No te simil ar in w ording to tha t quote d above) the following dental conditions w ith no DC as s i g ned: Cario u s t ee t h , t re at ab l e; M i s s i n g t ee t h , re p l ac eab l e; De n t o -a l v eo l ar ab s ce s s ; P y o rrh eaalveolaris; and V i n c e n t ’ s s t o m a t i t i s
. A 0 % r a t i n g w a s a s s i g n e d t o t h e s e c o n d i t i o n s
. 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 4

. 1 5 0 ( 1 9 9 3 )

. In J anuar y 1993, VA issued a pr oposed rule, inter alia, to de lete these dental conditions from § 4.150 and to a d d a n e w s e c ti o n d e s ig n a te d " § 4

. 1 4 9 , " w h ic h s tate d th a t th e s e d e n ta l c o n d it io n s w e r e not
c omp e ns a ble c on dit ion s, bu t ma

y be c on sid e re d se rv ic e c on ne c te d c on dit ion s so le ly fo r the purp os e of e sta bli sh inge nti tle me nt t o V A d e nta l e xami natio ns or VAou tpatie nt d e nta l tr e a tme nt. 58 Fe d

. Re g
. 4 9 6 1 ( Ja n
. 1 9 , 1 9 9 3 )

. Wh e n p r o p o s in g th is r e v is io n to th e r a ti n g s c h e d u le , the7

Se c re tary in t he Sup pl eme nt ary

I nf or ma tio n n ote d th a t " [u]nl ike oth e r d isa bil iti e s in the sc he du le these c onditions ar e not c onsidered disabling" and that "the issue of ser vice c onnection is addre ssed by rate rs only

for the pur

pose of de termining entitlement to outpatient dental treatment" unde r the provisions of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.382 and 17.123. 58 F ed. Reg

. at 4 961. The Sec reta ry explained:

" Sin c e the ra

tin g sc he du le is p ri mari ly a c la ssi fi c a tio n a

nd g uide for the e va luatio n o f d isa

bil iti e s, and since the VB A adjudication manual, M21-1, contains proc edura l instructions reg ardingdental rating s, inclusion of these non-disabling conditions in the rating schedule serve s no useful purpose ." Id. Consist ent with the proposed r ule, the Secr etar

y issued his final regulation th at , inter alia,

cre ated ne w § 4.149 in part 4, the sc hedule f or rating disabilities. 59 Fe d. Reg

. 2529, 2530 (Jan. 18, 19 9 4 )

. Re g u lati o n

§ 4

. 1 4 9 w a s e n ti tl e d

" Rati n g d is e a s e s o f

th e te e th an d g u ms " an d

p r o v ided:

" Tr e a ta ble c ari ou s te e th, re pla c e a ble mis sin g te e th, de nta l or a lve ola r a bs c e sse s, pe ri od on ta l di se a se (py orrhe a), a

nd Vincent's s t omatitis are not disabling conditions, and may be conside red se rvice

connec ted solely

for the pur

pose of de termin i n g entitlement to dental examinations or outpatient dent a l tr e a tm e n t u n d e r th e p r o v is io n s o f § § 1 7

. 1 2 0 o r 1 7

. 1 2 3 o f th is c h a p te r
. " 3 8 C. F .R. § 4.149 (1994). I n 1 99 7, the Se c re tary pr op os e d ame nd in g VA 's re g ulatio ns c on c e rn ingde nta l c on dit ion s, inter alia, to list in § 3

. 3 8 1 (a ) t he noncompe nsable de ntal conditions and to delete § 4.149. 62 Fe d. Reg . 8201, 8202 (F eb. 24 , 1 9 9 7 ). I n the Supplementary I nformation, the Sec reta ry explained: "The S ch ed u l e fo r Rating Disabilities is a guide for e valuating disabiliti es for

co mp e n s a ti o np u r

p o s e s
. B e c a

u s e th e d e n ta l c o n d it io n s li s te d in § 4

. 1 4 9 ar e n o t e v a lu a te d f or
c omp e ns a tio n, bu t on ly

to d e te rm ine e lig ibi lity

fo r t re a tme nt, it i s mo re a

pp ro pr ia te to l ist

the m in 3 8 [ C

. F. R

. ] p ar t3 , wh i ch co n t ai n s gen er al ru l es fo r d et er m i n i n g s er v i ce co n n ec t i o n
. " 6 2 Fe d

. R eg. at 8202. The Sec reta

ry also explained that he wa s proposing to r ewr ite §§ 3.381 and 3.382, which provided infor

mation for dete rmining w hich dental c onditions w er e service connec ted for outpatient-treatment purposes. Id. I n his f inal regulation, the Secre tary d el et ed t h e information contained in §§ 3.382 a

nd 4.149 and promulg ated a revised § 3.381. 64 F ed. R eg . 30,392, 30,393 (June 8, 1999). Reg ulation § 3.381(a) pr ovided then as it does now:8

(a) Treat able c arious tee th, replac eable missing teeth, de ntal or alve olar absce sses, and peri o d o n t al d i s ea s e w i l l b e c o n s i d er eds er v i ce -c o n n ec t eds o l el y for the purp os e of

e sta bli sh inge ligib ility

fo r o utp a tie nt d e nta l tr e a tme nt a s p ro vid e d in § 17.161 of this chapter

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.381(a) (1999 - 2005)

. This regulatory

history highlig hts the relationship betwe en §§ 4.150 and 3.381(a), a nd shows that when VA established a r ating schedule for de ntal and ora l conditions, VA determined that periodontal disea se wa s not to be included as a disability under § 4.150. We may

not reviewany challeng e to § 4.150 for its exclusion of periodontal disea se. The a ppellant' s challeng e invites the Court to undertake a re view that is " indisti ng uishable fr om the revie w of ' what should be a di sab il it y .'" W

anner , 3 7 0 F. 3 d

at 1 1 3 1 (q u o t i n g W

anner , 1 7 V e t

. A p p
. a t1 4

- 1 5 )

. A c c o r d i n g l y, pursuant to section 7252(b) and W an ne r, su pra , th is C ourt

la c ks jur isd ic tio n to re vie w the va lid ity of §§ 4.150 or 3.381( a) in ter ms of any inconsistency

with 38 U.S.C. § 1110. M s
. B y r d ' s a r g u me nt that section 1712 restric ts the Secre tary ' s authority to determine w hether a condition is a disability

for c ompensation purposes is w ithout mer it. Section 1712 sets forth the

e l i g i b i l i t y r e qu i r e m e n t s f

o r V A o u t p a t i e n tt r e a t m e n to f d e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s an d

d i s a b i l i t i e s
. It specific ally

rec og nizes that there ar e both compensa b l e an d noncompensa

ble servic e-c onnecte d dental conditions. Com

pa re 38 U.S.C. § 1712(a)(1) (A) with 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 1 7 1 2 (a )( 1 )( B)

. Al t h o u gh Congr ess intended f

or VA to provide dental tre atment in c ases meeting the re quirements spec ified in 38 U.S.C. § 1712, it did not provide guidanc e or require ments on what if any dental conditions qualify for VAcom pensation. The Sec reta ry has chose n to eliminate periodontal disea se, among oth e r comm on con di ti on s s uch as "cari ou s t eet h" and "mi ss in g teet h" fro m d is ease s gener all y elig ibl e for VA compensation and that decision as r efle cted in the r ating schedule , discussed above , is not revie wable by

this Court. Finally , the appellant is incorrec t that VA re cog nized a simil ar de ntal disability (py orrhe a) as compensable at the time of this Court's de cision in Ma nio , su pra . I n 1988, VA re g ulation § 4.150 listed certa in dental conditions at the end of DC 9913 an d as s i g ned to " Py orrhe a alve olaris" a 0%

ratin g . 3 8 C. F .R. § 4 .1 50 (1 98 8) . A c c or din g ly , th e re is n o in dic a tio n in the ratin g sc he du le that a claimant could obtain a compensa ble rating f

or that denta l condition. I n Ma nio the Court did c ite9

to 3 8 C. F .R. §§ 3. 38 1 a nd 3. 38 2( c ) ( 19 90 ), bu t di d n ot a dd re ss VA com pensa tio n f or tho se conditions. See Ma nio , 1 Vet.App. at 145.

III. Conclusi on On the basis of the fore g oing analy sis a nd upon consideration of the re cord on a ppeal a nd the parties' pleading s, the Court holds that it l acks jurisdiction to revie w the appe llant's c halleng e to the Secre tary ' s regulations that exclude periodontal disea se as a disability for whic h VA compe nsation may be paid. The J uly 2 1 , 2 0 0 4 , d ec i s ion of the B oard that denied ser vice c onnection for

g um disease f or the purpose of VA c ompensation is AFF I RMED.