Compensation Bars and Special Rules, Educational Guide
Conditions and Situations the VA May Not Compensate
Compensation bars, limitations, exceptions, treatment-only rules, and alternate service-connection paths. Some claimed conditions and situations face specific compensation bars or special rules. Others may qualify through a supported exception, secondary path, superimposed disability, treatment-only determination, or another governing rule. Start with the exact category and apply the rule that controls it.
Educational reference, not legal advice or claims assistance. These seven groups are governed by different statutes, regulations, and court decisions. They are not one list of conditions the VA refuses to touch. Whether a specific set of facts falls inside or outside a given rule is fact-specific. For help with a particular claim, work with a VA-accredited representative.
Terminology, so the categories below read correctly
A 0 percent rating is a service-connected disability that is non-compensable: the VA agrees the condition is connected to service, and it pays no monthly compensation for that condition by itself at the current level. That is a different outcome from service connection denied. A decision can also service-connect a condition for dental treatment purposes only, or evaluate a manifestation under another service-connected disability rather than separately. Read the exact wording on your decision, not a general label. The short comparison is below.
Denied service connection vs. service connected at 0%
Two outcomes that look similar on a decision letter and carry different consequences. This is supporting terminology for the categories below, not the subject of this guide.
Service connected at 0 percent
The VA agrees the condition is connected to service.
It is a non-compensable disability: no monthly compensation for that condition by itself at the current level.
An increase may be sought when the evidence supports greater severity, including later worsening.
The service-connected condition may support a secondary claim.
The VA did not grant service connection for that issue.
A denial may turn on the current-disability element, an in-service event, the link between them, the facts needed for a presumption, the evidence, or a specific legal bar.
The decision itself names the reason. That reason determines which review option fits.
A limited rule for multiple 0 percent ratings. Under 38 CFR 3.324, two or more separate permanent service-connected disabilities rated 0 percent that clearly interfere with normal employability may support a single 10 percent rating. It applies only when no other compensable service-connected rating exists.
The seven groups, and the rule that controls each one
1. Willful misconduct and line-of-duty bars Statutory bar
These are two separate rules that often get merged. Both trace to 38 U.S.C. 105 and are implemented in 38 CFR 3.1 and 38 CFR 3.301.
Line of duty, 38 CFR 3.1(m)
An injury or disease incurred or aggravated during active service is in line of duty unless it resulted from the veteran's own willful misconduct or, for claims filed after October 31, 1990, resulted from abuse of alcohol or drugs. The regulation then names situations where the line-of-duty requirement is not met, and the exact wording matters:
Avoiding duty by desertion, or absence without leave which materially interfered with the performance of military duty. Being absent is not by itself the disqualifier: that added clause is a real element, and it is what many of these cases actually turn on.
Confinement under a sentence of court-martial involving an unremitted dishonorable discharge, and the other confinement circumstances the regulation lists.
A service department finding can bind the VA. Under the same subsection, a service department finding that an injury, disease, or death occurred in line of duty is binding on the VA unless it is patently inconsistent with the laws the VA administers. So an existing in-line-of-duty determination in the record is not merely one more piece of evidence.
Willful misconduct, 38 CFR 3.1(n)
Willful misconduct has required elements, all of which must be present:
Deliberate or intentional wrongdoing.
Knowledge of, or wanton and reckless disregard for, the probable consequences.
Proximate causation of the injury, disease, or death.
What this does not reach: Simple negligence, an honest mistake, or poor judgment without deliberate wrongdoing does not meet the willful-misconduct definition. Because the elements are specific, a line-of-duty or misconduct finding is something the record has to actually support.
2. Personality disorders and intellectual disabilities Not a disease or injury for compensation
Under 38 CFR 4.127, intellectual disability and personality disorders are not diseases or injuries for compensation purposes.
The path the regulation provides: disability resulting from a mental disorder that is superimposed upon an intellectual disability or a personality disorder may be service connected. Superimposed means a separate condition laid on top of the underlying one: the underlying personality disorder or intellectual disability is not what gets evaluated, the separate acquired condition is. That acquired mental disorder is evaluated on its own supported facts, under the usual service-connection rules and the mental-health rating criteria. See the mental health guide.
A prior personality-disorder label in a service record does not by itself decide a later claim for an acquired mental disorder. What controls is the full record: the current diagnosis, the diagnostic criteria, and the evidence linking the condition to service.
3. Congenital, developmental, and hereditary conditions Disease and defect follow different rules
The controlling distinction comes from VA General Counsel opinion VAOPGCPREC 82-90, read with 38 CFR 3.303. Which side a condition falls on decides which rule applies.
A congenital or developmental defect is not a disease or injury for compensation purposes. A disease or injury superimposed on that defect during service may produce compensable disability.
A congenital, developmental, or hereditary disease may be service connected if it was incurred in service, or aggravated by service, under the rules that apply to any other disease.
Aggravation here is not automatic. Whether the aggravation rules in 38 CFR 3.306 help depends on how the condition is classified, whether it was noted at entry, how the presumption of soundness applies, whether the evidence shows an increase in severity during service, and whether that increase was the natural progression of the condition.
4. Alcohol or drug abuse, tobacco, and obesity Three different rules
These three are grouped together on most VA guidance, but each runs on its own authority and each has a different secondary path. Read the one that matches your facts.
Alcohol or drug abuse
Direct service connection for a disability that is the result of the veteran's own abuse of alcohol or drugs is barred by 38 U.S.C. 1110 and 38 CFR 3.301(d).
The secondary path, under Allen v. Principi. Compensation is not categorically barred for an alcohol-abuse or drug-abuse disability acquired as secondary to a service-connected disability. A causal relationship has to be established on the evidence in the individual case. The fact that a substance use disorder exists alongside PTSD or chronic pain is not by itself the required showing.
Tobacco
Under 38 CFR 3.300, for claims received by the VA after June 9, 1998, a disability or death is not service connected on the basis that it resulted from injury or disease attributable to the veteran's use of tobacco products during service.
That bar has three written exceptions, in 3.300(b). It does not prohibit service connection if:
the disability or death resulted from a disease or injury otherwise shown to have been incurred or aggravated in service, meaning it can be service connected on some basis other than tobacco use, or it became manifest during service;
the disease or injury appeared to the required degree within an applicable presumptive period under 38 CFR 3.307, 3.309, 3.313, or 3.316; or
secondary service connection is established for ischemic heart disease or other cardiovascular disease under 38 CFR 3.310(b).
A separate secondary path for post-service tobacco use, VAOPGCPREC 6-2003. Service connection may be considered where all three are shown:
a service-connected disability caused the veteran to use tobacco products after service;
that post-service tobacco use was a substantial factor in causing the secondary disability; and
the secondary disability would not have occurred but for that post-service tobacco use.
Section 3.300(c) carries its own separate restriction when the primary disability was itself service connected only because of in-service tobacco use.
Obesity
The rules here changed, and older summaries on this subject are now out of date.
Under Adams v. Collins, direct service connection for obesity remains unavailable under the majority's analysis, because obesity is not treated as a disease for that direct path.
Obesity may qualify as a disability when it causes functional impairment of earning capacity.
Secondary service connection may be available when a service-connected disability is a but-for cause of that functionally impairing obesity.
Obesity may also be an intermediate step between a service-connected disability and another disability (VAOPGCPREC 1-2017).
Walsh v. Wilkie requires the intermediate-step analysis to account for aggravation as well as causation.
Where Adams stands. The Secretary and the veteran appealed and cross-appealed. The Federal Circuit dismissed both proceedings by agreement on May 15, 2026, so the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims decision remains in place. See the causation chains guide for how an intermediate step is documented.
5. Laboratory findings without established functional disability A value is not automatically a disability
A laboratory value by itself may not establish a compensable disability. The controlling question is whether the evidence identifies a service-connectable disability and functional impairment, subject to the applicable rating rules.
Hyperlipidemia (high cholesterol) is the clearest worked example. It is a laboratory value rather than a disability the rating schedule evaluates on its own: there is no diagnostic code for it in 38 CFR Part 4, so a condition search returns none.
A formal diagnosis is not universally required. In Saunders v. Wilkie, the Federal Circuit held that functional impairment of earning capacity can be a disability even where no underlying diagnosis has been identified. So the analysis is about impairment and the governing rating rules, not about whether a lab sheet carries a particular label.
A laboratory finding can also be evidence in a larger picture: it may document the course of a disease that is itself claimed, or support a link between conditions. Whether a specific value in a specific record does that is a medical-evidence question in that case.
6. Dental and oral conditions Compensation and treatment are separate questions
Dental runs on two tracks, and a decision can grant one without the other.
Compensable dental disability
The dental and oral conditions that carry a compensable evaluation are in 38 CFR 4.150: jaw impairment, osteomyelitis, and similar conditions. For lost teeth specifically, the rating is for loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the body of the upper or lower jaw, and the schedule notes those ratings apply only where the bone loss came from trauma or a disease such as osteomyelitis. Losing teeth alone, without that loss of jaw bone substance, is not what this part of the schedule evaluates.
Service connection for treatment purposes only
Under 38 CFR 3.381, conditions such as treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease may nevertheless be service connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for VA dental treatment. In deciding that, the VA considers factors including whether the condition resulted from combat wounds and whether it resulted from service trauma. This is where service trauma does its work, and combat is not required: a service-trauma finding feeds the treatment-eligibility classes rather than a compensable evaluation.
Treatment eligibility is not automatic. A treatment-only determination does not by itself entitle every veteran to the same dental care. What care is available depends on which class the veteran falls into under 38 CFR 17.161, which sets out the eligibility classes and their limits.
7. Residuals associated with medical procedures The path depends on who treated you, and when
Whether a procedure was elective is not by itself the deciding question. What matters is which legal path applies to the facts. There are two, and they have different requirements.
A procedure performed during service
This is analyzed for direct service connection under the usual rules. Where the procedure treated a condition that pre-existed service, 38 CFR 3.306(b)(1) applies: if in-service treatment improved a condition the veteran already had, the ordinary expected effects of that treatment are not treated as service connected on their own, unless the condition was otherwise made worse by service. In plain terms, successfully treating something you brought with you does not by itself create a service-connected disability.
Treatment furnished by the VA
This runs under 38 U.S.C. 1151 and 38 CFR 3.361, which require:
Additional disability, meaning a disability the veteran did not have before the care.
Actual causation. The care has to have caused that disability. Showing only that care happened and a disability exists does not establish cause, and the continuance or natural progress of the original condition does not count.
Then one of two things, not both: either fault by the VA (carelessness, negligence, lack of proper skill, error in judgment, or similar), or an event not reasonably foreseeable.
Informed consent sits inside the fault branch, not beside it: care furnished without the veteran's informed consent is one of the two ways to show fault, the other being a failure to exercise the care expected of a reasonable health care provider. The not-reasonably-foreseeable path does not require a consent problem at all.
A rare complication, standing alone, is not the test. Neither path turns on whether an outcome was unusual. Each has its own named elements, and the evidence has to meet the elements of whichever path applies. See the 38 U.S.C. 1151 claims guide.
Four different doctrines, often called "aggravation"
Aggravation is not one universal exception that unlocks every category above. Four distinct doctrines get called by that name, and they have different requirements and different governing law. Matching the facts to the right one is the work.
1. Aggravation of a pre-service disease or injury during service
Governed by 38 CFR 3.306. This asks whether a condition that existed before service increased in severity during service, and whether that increase was the natural progression of the condition. How it interacts with the presumption of soundness depends on whether the condition was noted at entry.
2. Secondary causation or aggravation by a service-connected disability
This is the 38 U.S.C. 1110 question of whether a service-connected disability caused or aggravated another disability. Two decisions matter for how it is analyzed. In Ward, the Court rejected an added requirement of permanent worsening for secondary aggravation. In Spicer, the Federal Circuit held that 38 CFR 3.310(b) is unlawful to the extent it conflicts with section 1110's but-for standard. See the secondary claims guide.
3. A mental disorder superimposed on a personality disorder or intellectual disability
This is the specific path in 38 CFR 4.127, described in group 2 above. The superimposed acquired mental disorder is what is evaluated, on its own facts.
4. A disease or injury superimposed on a congenital or developmental defect
This is the VAOPGCPREC 82-90 path, described in group 3 above. It applies where the underlying condition is classified as a defect rather than a disease.
38 CFR 3.306 (aggravation of pre-service disability), including 3.306(b)(1) on the usual effects of in-service treatment. ecfr.gov/current/title-38/section-3.306
Allen v. Principi, 237 F.3d 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (alcohol or drug abuse disability secondary to a service-connected disability). law.justia.com
Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (functional impairment as a disability without an identified diagnosis). cafc.uscourts.gov
Adams v. Collins (obesity, direct and secondary analysis). uscourts.cavc.gov. Federal Circuit dismissal of both appeals by agreement, May 15, 2026. cafc.uscourts.gov
Walsh v. Wilkie (aggravation within the intermediate-step analysis). uscourts.cavc.gov
Ward (secondary aggravation; rejection of an added permanent-worsening requirement). uscourts.cavc.gov
Spicer (38 CFR 3.310(b) and section 1110's but-for standard). cafc.uscourts.gov
My decision letter says my condition is "not service connected." What does that mean?
It means service connection was denied for that issue. The decision states the reason, and the reason matters more than the label: a denial may turn on the current-disability element, an in-service event, the link between them, the facts needed for a presumption, the evidence, or a specific legal bar. Which review option fits depends on that reason, on what evidence exists, and on the deadline that applies. See the review options above and the decision review guide.
I was discharged with a "personality disorder" diagnosis. Does that block a later mental health claim?
Not by itself. Under 38 CFR 4.127, a personality disorder is not a disease or injury for compensation purposes, but disability resulting from a mental disorder superimposed on it may be service connected. A later acquired mental disorder is evaluated on its own supported facts. The prior label does not control that evaluation, and neither does the current label alone: the full record, the diagnostic criteria, and the evidence linking the condition to service are what decide it.
I got a 0 percent rating. What are my options?
A 0 percent rating is a service-connected, non-compensable disability: the connection to service is established, and no monthly compensation is paid for that condition by itself at the current level. An increase may be sought when the evidence supports greater severity, including later worsening, and the condition may support a secondary claim. If the question is whether the assigned level was wrong on the evidence already in the file, that is an error question; if there is new evidence, that points elsewhere. Options turn on error, evidence, and timing. See the rating decision guide for how to read what was decided.
I gained a significant amount of weight after a service-connected condition limited my activity. How is obesity handled?
Under Adams v. Collins, direct service connection for obesity remains unavailable under the majority's analysis, because obesity is not treated as a disease for that direct path. Obesity may qualify as a disability when it causes functional impairment of earning capacity, and secondary service connection may be available where a service-connected disability is a but-for cause of that functionally impairing obesity. Obesity may also be an intermediate step between a service-connected disability and another disability under VAOPGCPREC 1-2017, and Walsh v. Wilkie requires that analysis to account for aggravation as well as causation. Which of these fits depends on the medical evidence in the individual case.
My cavities started in service. Why is there no compensable rating?
Under 38 CFR 3.381, treatable carious teeth, replaceable missing teeth, dental or alveolar abscesses, and periodontal disease may nevertheless be service connected solely for the purpose of establishing eligibility for VA dental treatment, and whether the condition resulted from service trauma is one of the factors the VA considers there. Compensable evaluations live in 38 CFR 4.150 and cover jaw impairment, osteomyelitis, and loss of teeth due to loss of substance of the body of the jaw, where the bone loss came from trauma or a disease such as osteomyelitis. A treatment-only determination does not automatically provide the same dental care to every veteran: what is available depends on the eligibility class under 38 CFR 17.161.
I had a procedure and now have lasting problems. Which rule applies?
It depends on who performed it and when, not on whether it was elective. A procedure performed during service is analyzed for direct service connection, and where it treated a pre-existing condition, 38 CFR 3.306(b)(1) addresses the usual effects of in-service medical and surgical treatment. For treatment furnished by the VA, 38 U.S.C. 1151 and 38 CFR 3.361 apply: additional disability, actual causation by that care, and then either fault by the VA or an event not reasonably foreseeable. Informed consent is one of the two ways to show fault, not a separate requirement on top. Each path has its own named elements.
I was hurt during a period when I was AWOL. What governs that?
The line-of-duty rules in 38 CFR 3.1(m) govern, and they are separate from the willful-misconduct definition in 3.1(n). Read the wording closely: the requirement is not met where the veteran was avoiding duty by desertion, or was absent without leave which materially interfered with the performance of military duty. That last clause is an element, so being absent is not automatically the end of it. The regulation also makes a service department in-line-of-duty finding binding on the VA unless it is patently inconsistent with the laws the VA administers. An injury that happened outside the period in question is outside it as a matter of fact, not an exception to the rule.
RateMyVSO. Educational resource. Not affiliated with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Not legal advice. All RateMyVSO tools are free. Find a VSO representative for personalized guidance.