Harry L. Kellar appeals a June 3, 1992, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) denying an increased evaluation for chronic lumbosacral strain with nerve root irritation (currently rated as 40% disabling). Harry L. Kellar, BVA 92-13690 (June 3, 1992). The Secretary has filed a motion to dismiss, or alternatively, for summary affirmance. The Court has jurisdiction over the case pursuant to 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252(a) (West 1991). For the reasons set forth below, the Court vacates the June 1992 decision of the BVA and remands the case for readjudication consistent with this opinion.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
Appellant served on active duty in the United States Navy from August 18,1959, to August 14, 1962, and from April 9, 1963, to January 10,1968. R. at 16-17; see R. at 122, 126. On June 10, 1969, a VA regional office (RO) granted service connection for a meni-scectomy of the right knee. R. at 123. Appellant applied for service connection for a back condition on several occasions. On August 4, 1980, pursuant to a BVA remand on one of those claims, the RO granted service connection for chronic lumbosacral strain with nerve root irritation secondary to his service-connected right knee condition and rated as 10% disabling. R. at 217-18. By a letter dated August 28, 1981, appellant sought an increased evaluation for his service-connected disabilities, including his lum-bosacral strain condition. R. at 232-33. On October 28, 1981, the RO denied a claim for an increase in the 10% disability rating assigned to the lumbosacral strain condition. R. at 250.
On January 24, 1990, appellant sought an increase in the disability ratings for his service-connected disabilities. R. at 286. On July 11, 1990, the RO increased the rating for his service-connected lumbosacral strain condition to 40% disabling, but denied his claim for an increase in the 10% disability rating for his service-connected meniscecto-my. R. at 341. On July 27, 1990, appellant filed a Notice of Disagreement regarding the 40% disability rating for the service-connected lumbosacral strain condition. R. at 342. On October 22, 1990, he filed a claim for a total disability rating based on individual un-employability (TDIU). R. at 354. On November 14,1990, a hearing officer for the RO continued the denial of a disability rating above 40% for appellant’s back condition. R. at 410. On February 22, 1991, appellant wrote to the RO that medical records indicat
II. ANALYSIS
The Court notes that the Board did not err in returning the claims for service connection for urinary incontinence and TDIU. See Bernard v. Brown,
In his motion to dismiss, the Secretary argues that appellant’s claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain is inextricably intertwined with his claim for secondary service connection for urinary incontinence and should therefore be dismissed because the urinary incontinence claim is still pending at the AOJ. In Harris v. Derwinski,
A decision by the RO to grant appellant’s referred heart disorder claim could have a significant impact upon appellant’s claims for an increased rating for anxiety neurosis. This, in turn, could render any review by this Court of the decision on the anxiety neurosis claim meaningless and a waste of judicial resources.
Ibid.; see also Hoyer v. Derwinski,
Appellant’s claim for an increased evaluation for his service-connected chronic lumbosacral strain with nerve root irritation is a new claim, and the Court reviews the Board’s findings of fact regarding new claims under a “clearly erroneous” standard of review. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7261(a)(4) (West 1991); Butts v. Brown,
Appellant’s service-connected chronic lum-bosacral condition is currently rated under the DCs for limitation of motion of the lumbar spine and lumbosacral strain. 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DCs 5292, 5295. The maximum allowable disability rating under either DC is 40%.
Appellant argues that the Board failed to consider adequately the issue of pain. The Board, however, reviewed the medical records referring to pain and found that the severely disabling rating currently assigned to the condition encompassed the appellant’s pain. Kellar, BVA 92-13690, at 7.
In an effort to obtain a higher disability rating, appellant argues that his condition should be rated under the DC for intervertebral disc syndrome. In a July 18, 1991, letter, a neurologist noted that, on examination of appellant, that there was “[n]o objective evidence of lumbosacral radiculopathy or myelopathy.” R. at 454. (“Radiculopathy” is defined as “any pathological condition of the nerve roots.” DoRLANd’s Illustrated Medioal DICTIONARY 1405 (27th ed. 1988) [hereinafter DoulaND’s]. “Myelopathy” is defined as “a general term denoting functional disturbances and/or pathological changes in the spinal cord.” Id. at 1088.) By contrast, the 60% disability rating (i.e., the next higher) evaluation under the DC for intervertebral disc syndrome condition requires that the condition be “[p]ronouneed[,] with persistent symptoms compatible with sciatic neuropathy with characteristic pain and demonstrable muscle spasm, absent muscle jerk, or other neurological findings appropriate to site of diseased disc, little intermittent relief.” 38 C.F.R. § 4.71a, DC 5293. “Neuropathy” is defined as “a general term denoting functional disturbances and/or pathological changes in the peripheral nervous system.” Dorland’s at 1131. The July 1991 letter refutes the contention that appellant suffers from intervertebral disc syndrome. Appellant also concedes in his brief that his condition does not satisfy all the requirements listed under DC 5293. Appellant’s Br. at 10. Therefore, DC 5293 is not relevant to appellant’s claim. The Court thus holds that the BYA’s finding that DC 5293 is not applicable is not “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 38 U.S.C.A. § 7261(a)(3)(A) (West 1991); see Butts,
Insofar as appellant’s argument that the schedule for rating disabilities does not adequately reflect the severity of his condition, the Court is precluded from directly reviewing that schedule. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252(b) (West 1991); see also 38 U.S.C.A. § 1155 (West 1991); Butts,
Nevertheless, the Court holds that a remand is warranted in this situation. On numerous occasions, appellant sought extraschedular consideration of his claim for an increase. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) (1993), the VA’s Chief Benefits Director or the Director of the Compensation and Pension Service is authorized to approve
an extra-schedular evaluation commensurate with the average earning capacity impairment due exclusively to the service-connected disability or disabilities. The governing norm in these exceptional cases is: A finding that the case presents such an exceptional or unusual disability picture with such related factors as marked interference with employment or frequent periods of hospitalization as to render impractical the application of the regular schedular standards.
The record contains statements by appellant that his back condition has interfered with his employment (R. at 371-73), as well as a physician’s letter and VA progress notes indicating that appellant is totally disabled as a result of his multiple (service-connected and non-service-conneeted) conditions (R. at 438, 441). The Board’s decision, however, does not make the requisite findings of fact or give reasons or bases for its decision that referral to the appropriate VA officials under 38 C.F.R. § 3.321(b)(1) was not warranted. See Fanning v. Brown,
The Board also failed to adjudicate a claim for non-serviee-eonnected pension under 38 C.F.R. § 4.17 (1993). Since appellant had service during a period of war, see 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(11), (29), § 1521(a) (West 1991), his claim for an increase in the disability rating for his service-connected condition also presented a claim for non-service-connected pension. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a) (1993) (“claim ... for compensation may be considered to be a claim for pension”); see also Waddell v. Brown,
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, upon consideration of the record, the Secretary’s motion for summary af-firmance, and appellant’s pleadings, the Court denies the Secretary’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary affir-mance, VACATES the June 1992 decision of the BVA, and REMANDS the case for read-judication consistent with this opinion.