12-29 728, 12-29 728

Veteran served 1968–1970 (Vietnam); initially service‑connected for diabetes mellitus in 2005 (10% from July 22, 2003).
Veteran sought an increased rating; RO raised diabetes to 20% in Oct 2011 (diabetes characterized as type II with erectile dysfunction); appeal followed.
Board remanded in July 2016 for updated records and a new VA exam; VA exams obtained Sept 2016 and addendum Feb 2017; SSOC issued April 2017.
Medical evidence (2010–2016 VA records and VA exams) shows diabetes controlled on oral hypoglycemic (metformin) and restricted diet; no insulin required, no activity regulation, no hospitalizations for ketoacidosis/hypoglycemia, and no diabetes complications attributable to erectile dysfunction.
Examiner opined erectile dysfunction was not caused by diabetes; overall diabetes stable throughout appeal period.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Entitlement to >20% rating for diabetes mellitus type II with erectile dysfunction	Diabetes has worsened and warrants higher rating	Records and exams show diabetes controlled with oral agents and diet; no insulin, activity regulation, or diabetic complications	Denied — evidence supports 20% rating only

Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998) (VA must comply with Board remand directives)
Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (duty to notify standards)
AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993) (claim remains before Board when not a total grant)
Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000) (duty to assist principles)
Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001) (duty to assist principles)
Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002) (duty to assist principles)
Camacho v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 360 (2007) (meaning of "regulation of activities" under diabetic rating criteria)