11-02 668, 11-02 668

Veteran served multiple periods on active duty (1998, 2001–2003, 2004–2005) and appealed a March 2008 RO decision denying a compensable rating for service‑connected sarcoidosis polyarthropathy.
Initial diagnosis in 2004 with bilateral ankle pain and hilar adenopathy; treated with prednisone through August 2004, symptoms resolved by June 2004.
Subsequent records (2005–2010) show no ongoing steroid treatment, normal pulmonary function tests, no pulmonary or ocular symptoms, and generally normal extremity exams.
Veteran testified in February 2012 that condition was dormant with only minor tightness/pain and stated he was satisfied with a 0% rating.
RO and Board obtained and reviewed VA and private medical records and provided required notice and assistance; the Board found examinations adequate and no outstanding evidence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to an initial compensable rating for sarcoidosis (DC 6846)	Veteran contended disease effects justify a compensable rating for sarcoidosis/polyarthropathy (ankle symptoms).	VA argued sarcoidosis produced no pulmonary/ocular involvement, required no ongoing corticosteroids, and was in remission; ankle findings did not meet motion‑limitation criteria.	Denied — evidence shows sarcoidosis asymptomatic/remitted and never required chronic/intermittent corticosteroids; no compensable rating warranted.
Alternative rating under ankle diagnostic code (DC 5271)	Veteran asserted functional loss of ankles from sarcoidosis merits at least a 10% rating.	VA noted normal ranges of motion in records except one limited dorsiflexion finding; no evidence of moderate/marked limitation.	Denied — record does not show moderate or marked limitation of ankle motion.

Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990) (Board must weigh evidence and explain rejections).
Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (remand compliance requirement).
Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (competency of lay testimony for observable symptoms).
Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (2007) (lay evidence competency principles).
Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (2009) (lay evidence competency principles).
Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378 (2000) (Board need not discuss every piece of evidence).
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (2015) (procedural arguments limited to those raised by veteran absent extraordinary circumstances).
Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (2001) (benefit‑of‑the‑doubt doctrine standards).