The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied.

Citation Nr: A26069928 Decision Date: 07/30/26 Archive Date: 07/30/26 DOCKET NO. 251112-627286 DATE: July 30, 2026 ORDER The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is denied. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected erectile dysfunction is denied. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected eczema is denied. The appeal as to the claim of entitlement to a higher level of special monthly compensation (SMC) based on loss of use of creative organ is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's PTSD has been manifested by occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks due to such symptoms as depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; panic attacks that occur weekly or less often; and chronic sleep impairment, without more severe manifestations that more nearly approximate occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, deficiencies in most areas, or total occupational and social impairment. 2. Throughout the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran's erectile dysfunction is manifested by loss of erectile power; there is no evidence of removal of the glans of the penis or any other injury. 3. Throughout the pendency of the appeal, the Veteran's eczema affected at least five percent, but less than 20 percent of the entire body, and less than five percent of exposed areas affected; it did not require the use of systemic therapy. 4. The Veteran is in receipt of the maximum rate of SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for establishing an initial rating in excess of 30 percent for the service-connected PTSD have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, 4.7, 4.21, 4.129, 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411 (2021). 2. The criteria for establishing an initial compensable rating for service-connected erectile dysfunction have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.115(b), Diagnostic Code 7522 (2021). 3. The criteria for establishing an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for service-connected eczema have not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1155, 5107(b) (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.7, 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7806 (2021). 4. The criteria for establishing a higher level of SMC for loss of use of a creative organ have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from May 2009 to May 2010, and from March 2018 to March 2019. His service was under honorable conditions. The matter is on appeal from a September 2024 rating decision issued by a United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which is the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ). In a November 2025 VA Form 10182 (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran timely appealed to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) and elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2024 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its findings of fact and conclusions of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Increased Rating - Legal Criteria Rating Disabilities (Rating Schedule), 38 C.F.R. Part 4 (2021). The percentage ratings contained in the Rating Schedule represent, as far as can be practicably determined, the average impairment in earning capacity resulting from diseases and injuries incurred or aggravated during military service and their residual conditions in civil occupations. 38 U.S.C. § 1155 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.321 (a), 4.1 (2021). Where there is a question as to which of two evaluations shall be applied, the higher evaluation will be assigned if the disability picture more nearly approximates the criteria required for that rating. Otherwise, the lower rating will be assigned. 38 C.F.R. § 4.7 (2021). In accordance with 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.1, 4.2 (2021) and Schafrath v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 589 (1991), the Board has reviewed all evidence of record pertaining to the history of the service-connected disabilities at issue. The Board has found nothing in the historical record which would lead to the conclusion that the current evidence of record is not adequate for rating purposes. Moreover, the Board is of the opinion that this case presents no evidentiary considerations which would warrant an exposition of remote clinical histories and findings pertaining to the disability. In both initial rating claims and subsequent increased rating claims, the Board must discuss whether "staged ratings" are warranted, and if not, why not. Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999); Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007). The basis of disability evaluation is the ability of the body as a whole, or of the psyche, or of a system or organ of the body to function under the ordinary conditions of daily life including employment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.10 (2021). It is not expected, especially with the more fully described grades of disabilities, that all cases will show all the findings specified; findings sufficiently characteristic to identify the disease and the disability therefrom are sufficient; and above all, a coordination of rating with impairment of function will be expected in all cases. 38 C.F.R. § 4.21 (2021). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. The Secretary shall consider all information, both lay and medical evidence of record, in a case before the Secretary with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 4.3 (2021); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). 1. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for service-connected PTSD. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to an initial evaluation in excess of 30 percent for his PTSD under 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411, which refers to the General Formula for Mental Disorders (General Formula). See 38 C.F.R. § 4.130. Pursuant to the General Formula, a 30 percent rating is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks (although generally functioning satisfactory, with routine behavior, self-care, and conversation normal), due to such symptoms as: depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks (weekly or less often), chronic sleep impairment, mild memory loss (such as forgetting names, directions, recent events). 38 C.F.R. § 4.130, Diagnostic Code 9411. A 50 percent rating is warranted when there is occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity due to such symptoms as: flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more often than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory (e.g., retention of only highly learned material, forgetting to complete tasks); impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Id. A 70 percent evaluation is warranted where there is occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas, such as work, school, family relations, judgment, thinking, or mood, due to such symptoms as suicidal ideation; obsessional rituals which interfere with routine activities; intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; near-continuous panic or depression affecting the ability to function independently, appropriately and effectively; impaired impulse control (such as unprovoked irritability with periods of violence); spatial disorientation; neglect of personal appearance and hygiene; difficulty in adapting to stressful circumstances (including work or a work-like setting); and inability to establish and maintain effective relationships. Id. A 100 percent evaluation is assignable where there is total occupational and social impairment, due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); and disorientation to time or place; memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name. Id. Consideration is given to the frequency, severity, and duration of psychiatric symptoms, the length of remission, and the Veteran's capacity for adjustment during periods of remission. The rating agency shall assign an evaluation based on all the evidence of record that relates to occupational and social impairment, rather than solely on the examiner's assessment of the level of disability at the moment of the examination. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (a). Furthermore, when evaluating the level of disability arising from a mental disorder, the rating agency will consider the extent of social impairment but shall not assign an evaluation solely on the basis of social impairment. 38 C.F.R. § 4.126 (b). It is necessary to evaluate a disability from the point of view of the Veteran working or seeking work. 38 C.F.R. § 4.2. A July 2022 VA outpatient treatment record notes that the Veteran works full time as a construction worker. On mental status examination, the Veteran was neat, calm, and cooperative. He was attentive and made good eye contact. He was oriented to person, place, and time. His recent and remote memory were intact. There was no impairment of attention or concentration. There were no signs of psychomotor agitation. His speech was fluent and clear with normal rate, tone, and volume. His mood was stressed. His thought process was linear and logical. He denied suicidal and homicidal thoughts or plan. There was no evidence of delusions. His judgement and insight were good. His impulse control was normal. A February 2023 VA outpatient therapy record notes the Veteran's report of his mood being better overall. He stated that he enjoys renovating new home. He reported an improved work environment at his new job at the sewage plan, with his ability to work at desk in a trailer, fewer hours, and higher salary. A January 2024 VA outpatient treatment record notes that the Veteran takes medication for his PTSD. He lives with his girlfriend in a home they purchased. He began a new job at a sewage plant in February 2023. He reported current symptoms of difficulty sleeping and lack of energy. He denied depression and reported that his mood was better overall. He reported that he enjoys renovating his new home and looks forward to hosting a party at his house. On mental status examination, the Veteran was neat, calm, and cooperative. He was attentive and made good eye contact. He was oriented to person, place, and time. His recent and remote memory were intact. There was no impairment of attention or concentration. There were no signs of psychomotor agitation. His speech was fluent and clear with normal rate, tone, and volume. His mood and affect were stressed. His thought process was linear and logical. He denied suicidal and homicidal thoughts or plan. There was no evidence of delusions. His judgement and insight were good. His impulse control was normal. A March 2024 VA outpatient treatment record notes the Veteran's report of sleeping well. He denied experiencing anxiety, and stated that he started walking one to two miles a day. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2024. He reported that he is divorced since 2015, and the decision was mutual. He lives with his girlfriend of five years in a house they purchased a year and a half ago. The Veteran does not have any children. He reported that he has good friends and good relationships with family members. He reported that he gets along well with co-workers, though he was laid off from his construction job. The Veteran reported that he has been getting help for his PTSD at VA for the past several months. He denied legal and behavioral problems. Examination revealed that the Veteran was alert and oriented to person, place, time, and situation. He was appropriately dressed and groomed. His demeanor was engaged and cooperative throughout the evaluation. His speech was normal rate, tone, and volume. His mood was mildly anxious. His affect was consistent with his mood. There was evidence of depressed mood; anxiety; suspiciousness; panic attacks that occur weekly or less often; and chronic sleep impairment. His thoughts were coherent and goal-directed with no evidence of psychosis. There was no evidence of suicidal or homicidal ideation or plan. The examiner assessed PTSD. The examiner found that the Veteran's occupational and social impairment with respect to his PTSD resulted in occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. Taking all factors into consideration with application of the approximating principles of 38 C.F.R. § 4.7, and the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine, the Board finds that throughout the appeal period, the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by occupational and social impairment with occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks due to such symptoms as depressed mood, anxiety, suspiciousness, panic attacks that occur weekly or less often, and chronic sleep impairment; without more severe manifestations that more nearly approximate occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity, deficiencies in most areas, or total occupational and social impairment. Collectively, these symptoms are of the type, extent, severity and/or frequency to result in occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks. Nonetheless, during the appeal period, the overall disability picture demonstrated by the evidence is not consistent with a rating in excess of 30 percent. In reaching this conclusion, the Board observes that the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran's PTSD was manifested by symptoms that are specifically contemplated by the current 30 percent rating assigned. Moreover, the August 2024 VA examiner, who evaluated the Veteran and reviewed the evidentiary record, opined that the Veteran's symptoms during this period resulted in, at most, in occasional decrease in work efficiency and intermittent periods of inability to perform occupational tasks, although generally functioning satisfactorily, with normal routine behavior, self-care and conversation. This level of impairment is consistent with the current 30 percent rating. Overall, during this period, the Veteran maintained a relationship with his girlfriend of five years, family, and friends, and he engaged in numerous hobbies, including renovating his new home and exercising. In addition, he got along well with his coworkers in all occupational settings, when he worked in construction and at the sewage plant. Accordingly, the Board finds that the evidentiary record shows that the severity of the Veteran's disability most closely approximates the criteria for a 30 percent disability evaluation throughout the appeal period. The Board finds that the overall disability picture demonstrated by the evidence is not consistent with a 50 percent rating. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran had any of the symptoms of the 50 percent criteria, such as flattened affect; circumstantial, circumlocutory, or stereotyped speech; panic attacks more often than once a week; difficulty in understanding complex commands; impairment of short- and long-term memory; impaired judgment; impaired abstract thinking; disturbances of motivation and mood; or difficulty in establishing and maintaining effective work and social relationships. Ultimately, the record reveals that the Veteran's memory was intact; his thinking and judgment were good; he had no history of violence; he maintained relationships with family and friends; and he engaged in several leisure activities, such as taking walks, renovating his home, and family activities. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's PTSD was not manifested by occupational and social impairment with reduced reliability and productivity or social and occupational impairment with deficiencies in most areas. The Board also finds that the overall disability picture demonstrated by the evidence is not consistent with a 70 or a 100 percent rating. There is no indication from the record that he had any of the symptoms of the 70 or 100 percent criteria, such as obsessional rituals; illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech; neglect of his personal appearance and hygiene; suicidal ideation; homicidal ideation; or disorientation to time or place. Ultimately, the record reveals that the Veteran's thinking and judgment were good; he had no history of legal or behavioral problems, violence, or arrests; and he maintained a relationship with his girlfriend, family, and friends. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's PTSD was not manifested by occupational and social impairment with deficiencies in most areas. Likewise, the maximum schedular rating of 100 percent is not warranted, because there was not total occupational and social impairment due to such symptoms as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; persistent delusions; grossly inappropriate behavior; persistent danger of hurting self or others; intermittent inability to perform activities of daily living (including maintenance of minimal personal hygiene); disorientation to time or place; and memory loss for names of closes relatives, own occupation, or own name. In this regard, there was no documentation of symptoms such as gross impairment in thought processes or communication; in fact, the Veteran was consistently able to actively communicate during VA examination and treatment. Similarly, his symptoms were not manifested by persistent delusions or hallucinations, grossly inappropriate behavior, persistent danger of hurting self or others, intermittent inability to perform daily living activities, disorientation to time or place, or memory loss of names of close relatives' own occupation, or own name. In this regard, treatment records and the VA examination report show that the Veteran did not exhibit intermittently illogical, obscure, or irrelevant speech or spatial disorientation. In fact, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran was consistently noted as oriented to person, time, and place. His speech was within normal limits with regular rate and rhythm. His judgment and insight were noted as good. The Veteran's concentration was noted as good and his short term and long-term memory were grossly intact. The Veteran's communication skills were good, and his understanding was intact. Additionally, the Veteran consistently denied persistent delusions or hallucinations; grossly inappropriate behavior has not been documented; there has not been persistent danger of hurting self or others noted; and memory loss for names of close relatives, own occupation, or own name or similar symptoms has not been shown. Further, total occupational and social impairment has not been shown. As stated, the Veteran maintained a social relationship with his family and friends. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the Veteran's service-connected PTSD does not warrant an initial rating in excess of 30 percent, to include as a "staged" rating(s) pursuant to Fenderson and Hart. 2. Entitlement to an initial compensable evaluation for service-connected erectile dysfunction. The Veteran contends that his service-connected erectile dysfunction disability warrants an initial compensable rating, as his symptoms are more severe. Pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7522, erectile dysfunction, with or without penile deformity, is rated as noncompensable (0 percent). 38 C.F.R. § 4.115(b), Diagnostic Code 7522. A higher rating of 20 percent is warranted under Diagnostic Code 7521 with evidence of removal of glans of the penis. There is no such evidence in this case. VA outpatient treatment records dated in March 2024 note the Veteran's report of erectile dysfunction for over a year. The Veteran was prescribed Sildenafil Citrate to treat his erectile dysfunction. The Veteran underwent a VA male reproductive system examination in August 2024, during which erectile dysfunction was diagnosed. Examination revealed erectile dysfunction. There was no evidence of an orchiectomy, renal dysfunction due to erectile dysfunction, or voiding dysfunction. The Veteran could not achieve an erection sufficient for penetration and ejaculation. The Veteran does not use medication for treatment of his erectile dysfunction. There was no evidence of retrograde ejaculation. There was no evidence of, or history of, chronic prostatitis, urethritis, epididymitis, orchitis, or urinary tract infections. The penis, testes, and epididymis were not examined per the Veteran's request. The Veteran reports normal anatomy with no penile deformity or abnormality. The Veteran reports normal anatomy with no testicular deformity or abnormality. The Veteran reports normal anatomy of the epididymis with no deformity or abnormality. There was no evidence of a benign or malignant neoplasm, or metastases related to the Veteran's erectile dysfunction. The examiner found that the Veteran's erectile dysfunction did not impact his ability to work. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that an inial compensable evaluation for the Veteran's service-connected erectile dysfunction disability is not warranted. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in August 2024, and he denied any abnormalities to penis or testicles. During the examination, while the Veteran reported the inability to have an erection, he did not report the removal of any part of his penis. In reaching the above determinations, the Board has fully considered the Veteran's lay statements in support of a higher rating. Here, the Veteran has consistently reported erectile dysfunction. Lay witnesses are competent to provide testimony or statements relating to symptoms or facts of events that the lay witness observed and is within the realm of his or her personal knowledge, but not competent to establish that which would require specialized knowledge or training, such as medical expertise. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) and Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran's statements, however, are not competent evidence to identify a specific level of disability and do not provide any basis upon which to assign any higher rating. Accordingly, an initial compensable evaluation for erectile dysfunction, to include as a "staged" rating(s) pursuant to Fenderson and Hart, is not warranted. 3. Entitlement to an initial evaluation in excess of 10 percent for service-connected eczema. The Veteran contends that his service-connected eczema disability warrants an initial rating in excess of 10 percent, as his symptoms are more severe. The Veteran's eczema is rated as 10 percent disabling under the General Rating Formula for the Skin pursuant to Diagnostic Code 7806. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Effective August 13, 2018, the criteria for Diagnostic Code 7806 was amended. See 83 Fed. Reg. 32,597 (July 13, 2018); 83 Fed. Reg. 38,663 (Aug. 7, 2018). These revisions are applicable to all claims received by VA on or after August 13, 2018. The Veteran's claim for an increased rating for his eczema was received in July 2023, so the new criteria will apply. Diagnostic Code 7806, which addresses eczema, is evaluated under the General Rating Formula for the Skin, or, depending upon the predominant disability, it may be rated as disfigurement of the head, face, or neck (Diagnostic Code 7800) or scars (Diagnostic Codes 7801, 7802, 7804, or 7805). 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Under the General Rating Formula for the Skin, a 10 percent rating is assigned for at least one of the following: characteristic lesions involving at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of the entire body affected; or at least 5 percent, but less than 20 percent, of exposed areas affected; or intermittent systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of less than 6 weeks over the past 12- month period. A 30 percent rating requires characteristic lesions involving 20 to 40 percent of the entire body; characteristic lesions involving 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month period. A 60 percent rating requires characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of the entire body or more; characteristic lesions involving more than 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or constant or near constant systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy, retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA, or other immunosuppressive drugs required over the past 12-month period. Systemic therapy is treatment that is administered through any route (orally, injection, suppository, intranasally) other than the skin and topical therapy is treatment that is administered through the skin. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, Diagnostic Code 7824. The Veteran underwent a VA skin examination in July 2024. He reported a history of eczema but has not been treated in years. Examination was negative for a skin disorder, to include eczema. The examiner noted the Veteran's complaint of a fungal condition, but examination was also negative for a fungal condition. The examiner noted that the Veteran's nails are within normal limits, but indicated that some of his toenails show damage, but no evidence of a fungal condition. The Veteran underwent a VA skin examination in August 2024. He reported a history of eczema since his service in Afghanistan in 2009. He indicated that his condition is on his hands, feet, legs, arms, and chest, manifested by rashes and peeling skin. Upon examination and review of the record, the examiner assessed papular eczema. The examiner noted that the Veteran had not been treated with medication in the past 12 months for any skin condition. The Veteran did not have any treatments or procedures other than systemic or tropical medications in the past 12 months for any skin condition. Total body area of eczema was five percent to less than 20 percent, and exposed area was less than five percent. The Veteran did not have a skin condition without any visible characteristic lesions at the time of the examination. His eczema was manifested by irritating itchy red lesions slightly raised and numerous over the entire torso, bilateral arms, lower legs, and hands. The Veteran did not have a benign or malignant neoplasm or metastases related to his eczema. The Veteran's eczema did not cause scarring or disfigurement of the head, face, or neck. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board finds that an initial rating in excess of 10 percent is not warranted for the Veteran's service-connected eczema disability. In order to warrant the next higher 30 percent rating, the evidence must show characteristic lesions involving 20 to 40 percent of the entire body; characteristic lesions involving 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas affected; or systemic therapy including, but not limited to, corticosteroids, phototherapy retinoids, biologics, photochemotherapy, PUVA or other immunosuppressive drugs required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over the past 12-month period. Here, the relevant VA examination report shows that the Veteran's eczema of the hands, arms, legs, and torso affects at least five percent but less than 20 percent of the total body, and less than five percent of the exposed area affected. In addition, the Veteran did not take any medication in the past 12 months for his eczema, including systemic therapy. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran believes that the disability on appeal has been more severe than the assigned disability rating reflects. Moreover, the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, medical treatment records and VA examination reports do not show that the Veteran's disability more nearly approximates the criteria in the next higher 30 percent rating. Here, the observations prepared by skilled professionals are far more probative that the Veteran's own opinion. The Board has considered whether any other Diagnostic Codes related to disabilities of the skin would provide for a higher disability evaluation. However, his eczema does not warrant a higher rating under a different diagnostic code. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.118. Moreover, rating the Veteran under the diagnostic codes relating to scars is not applicable here because the evidence does not reflect scarring due to the Veteran's skin condition. Accordingly, an initial rating in excess of 10 percent for eczema, to include as a "staged" rating(s) pursuant to Fenderson and Hart, is not warranted. As the weight of the evidence is against the claim for a compensable rating, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not for application, and the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). 4. Entitlement to a higher level of SMC based on loss of use of creative organ. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a higher level of SMC for loss of use of his creative organ. SMC is a special statutory award granted in addition to awards based on the schedular evaluations provided by the diagnostic codes in VA's Rating Schedule. Claims for SMC are governed by 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k) through (s) and 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.350 and 3.352. SMC is payable at a specified rate if the veteran, as the result of service-connected disability, has suffered the anatomical loss of use of one or more creative organs. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k), 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (a). The rate of SMC compensation is a specific value that is adjusted annually, independent of any other awarded compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k). The annual adjustment is made by the United States Congress through statutory action and not the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has no control over the amount established or set by Congress. The Board finds that an increased rating for SMC based on loss of use of a creative organ is not warranted, as the law does not provide for a higher rate of SMC for loss of use of a creative organ. 38 U.S.C. § 1114 (k). Because SMC rates are determined by statute and are not subject to the Board's discretion, the Board is specifically prohibited from granting benefits that are not authorized by law. See 38 U.S.C. § § 7104 (c); McTighe v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 29, 30 (1994). Therefore, the claim must be denied as a matter of law. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). B. MULLINS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sara Schinnerer, Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.