Loss of Smell / Taste

Loss of smell and loss of taste have their own corner of the rating schedule: DC 6275 and DC 6276 in 38 CFR § 4.87a, the schedule for other sense organs. Each code assigns a single 10 percent evaluation for complete loss of the sense, and the section's note permits an evaluation only if there is an anatomical or pathological basis for the condition. The current text provides no reduced-loss percentage tier.

Three facts follow. First, partial loss (hyposmia or reduced taste) has no compensable tier under these codes. Second, smell and taste have separate codes, so complete loss of both may support separate 10 percent evaluations when each is established and the same manifestation is not counted twice. Third, the record must establish an anatomical or pathological basis. Objective testing and a medical explanation can help establish the loss and its basis, but § 4.87a does not mandate one particular test or automatically exclude a sinonasal cause.

This page walks through the two codes and the complete-loss binary, evidence relevant to the basis requirement, overlap with sinonasal conditions, service-connection lanes (head trauma, toxic inhalation, secondary to TBI or to service-connected COVID-19), and the SMC question.

TL;DR

• Loss of smell is DC 6275 and loss of taste is DC 6276, both in 38 CFR § 4.87a (other sense organs), each rated at a single 10 percent for COMPLETE loss.
• The section note permits evaluation only with an anatomical or pathological basis for the condition. A symptom report may establish what the veteran experiences, but it does not by itself identify the basis required by the note.
• Partial loss (hyposmia, diminished taste) is not compensable under these codes; it should still be documented, both for treatment and in case the loss progresses.
• Complete loss of both senses may support separate 10 percent ratings when each loss and its basis are established and the evaluations do not compensate the same manifestation twice under 38 CFR § 4.14.
• Rhinitis or sinusitis does not automatically bar DC 6275. The question is whether complete smell loss is separately established and whether a separate evaluation would avoid duplicating symptoms already compensated under another code.
• Recognized lanes: direct (in-service head trauma or documented toxic inhalation) and secondary under 38 CFR § 3.310, most notably to service-connected TBI and, where COVID-19 is service-connected, to post-COVID residuals.
• No verified aggregate Board-outcome cut for smell- or taste-loss-specific claims was available, so this page publishes no outcome statistic.

Two Codes, Complete Loss Only

The full text of the special-senses schedule is short enough to quote:

6275 Sense of smell, complete loss: 10% 6276 Sense of taste, complete loss: 10% Note: Evaluation will be assigned under diagnostic codes 6275 or 6276 only if there is an anatomical or pathological basis for the condition.

There is no reduced-ability tier in the current text. A veteran who can smell some odors but not others, or whose taste is dulled but present, has a documented sensory deficit that is nonetheless noncompensable under these codes. That sounds harsh, and it is worth being honest about: the schedule prices only the complete loss. The practical guidance is to document partial loss thoroughly anyway, because sensory loss that progresses later converts a thin file into an established history, and because the documentation often matters for the underlying condition's evaluation (the TBI, the sinus disease) even when 6275 or 6276 is not yet compensable.

The two codes address different senses. Complete loss of both may support separate 10 percent ratings when each loss and its basis are established, but 38 CFR § 4.14 still bars duplicate compensation for the same manifestation. The medical evaluation should distinguish true taste loss from the loss of flavor perception that can follow smell loss.

The Anatomical or Pathological Basis: The Real Gate

The section note is where these claims are decided. The record must establish an anatomical or pathological basis for the complete loss. Depending on the condition, useful evidence may include:

• Clinical smell or taste testing. Validated testing can help distinguish partial from complete loss and separate true taste loss from loss of flavor perception.
• The examiner's basis and nexus explanation. An ENT, neurology, or other qualified evaluation may identify olfactory nerve injury, post-viral change, toxic injury, or sinonasal disease and address how it relates to service or a service-connected condition.
• The workup trail. Endoscopy or imaging may be relevant when clinically indicated. VA's current public Loss of Sense of Smell and/or Taste DBQ asks whether the loss is partial or complete and whether a known anatomical or pathological basis exists.

The regulation does not prescribe a specific test. The core question is whether competent evidence establishes complete loss and the required anatomical or pathological basis.

The Sinonasal Boundary

Rhinitis, sinusitis, polyps, or other sinonasal disease may produce smell loss. The schedule does not say that a sinonasal cause automatically excludes DC 6275. Instead, the record must establish complete smell loss and an anatomical or pathological basis, and a separate evaluation must not compensate the same manifestation twice. If the evidence shows only obstruction or other symptoms already contemplated by the respiratory code, a second rating may violate § 4.14. If complete anosmia is a distinct residual, the rater must consider the appropriate code on the individual facts.

Taste changes from dental or oral disease route to the dental codes, and appetite or eating changes from a mental health condition route to that condition's evaluation. The special-senses codes are for the smell and taste pathways themselves.

Service-Connection Lanes

Secondary to TBI. DC 8045 identifies loss of smell and taste among physical TBI residuals that should be evaluated under the appropriate diagnostic code. A separate rating is permissible when the residual has distinct manifestations that are not also used in the TBI evaluation. The file needs established service connection for TBI and medical evidence addressing the sensory loss, its basis, and its relationship to the injury.

Direct: in-service head trauma or toxic inhalation. A documented head injury or a documented toxic inhalation event during service (blast, smoke, chemical exposure) that damaged the olfactory or gustatory pathways, with a current diagnosis and a nexus opinion. The in-service event has to be in the record or credibly established by lay evidence.

Secondary to COVID-19. Persistent smell or taste loss after COVID-19 is medically recognized. Where the underlying infection is service-connected, lasting loss may support secondary service connection, with evidence of onset, persistence, complete current loss, the required basis, and a medical link. This lane is stated at the general education level only; its strength depends on the individual evidence.

No lane is automatic. Every one of them ends at the same regulatory gate: complete loss with an anatomical or pathological basis, plus the evidence required to connect that disability to service.

The SMC Question

DC 6275 and DC 6276 do not themselves create a named SMC-k entitlement. Section 3.350 lists the qualifying losses and does not list smell or taste. That does not foreclose SMC based on a different qualifying disability or on aid-and-attendance or housebound criteria; it means complete loss of smell or taste alone is evaluated under the schedular codes rather than treated as a listed SMC-k loss.

Common Failure Modes

Basis not established. The record describes the symptom but does not establish the anatomical or pathological basis required by the note.

Overlap not addressed. The record does not explain whether complete anosmia is a distinct residual or the same manifestation already being evaluated with a respiratory condition.

One workup, two claims. Taste loss asserted on a smell-only evaluation, when the examiner never tested or documented taste separately.

Resolved or partial loss. The current evidence shows recovery or reduced function rather than the complete loss required by the code.

Partial loss presented as complete. The evidence documents hyposmia rather than the complete anosmia required for 10 percent under DC 6275.

Secondary Conditions and Neighbors

The smell-and-taste codes sit between the nasal cluster and the neurological one: allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, and deviated septum on one side and TBI on the other. Code references: /va-codes/6275, /va-codes/6276, /va-codes/6522, and /va-codes/6510. The secondary conditions tool maps the TBI lane at a general level, and the combined rating calculator shows how one or two 10 percent ratings combine with other evaluations.

Bottom Line

These are binary schedular codes. Complete loss of smell is 10 percent and complete loss of taste is 10 percent; partial loss has no compensable tier under DC 6275 or 6276. The record must establish the anatomical or pathological basis, and separate evaluations must avoid duplicating the same manifestations. Service connection may be direct or secondary, but it depends on the evidence in the individual record rather than a preferred universal lane.

Methodology and Limitations

• Data source: Rating criteria quoted from the current eCFR text of 38 CFR § 4.87a (DC 6275, DC 6276, and the section note on anatomical or pathological basis); avoidance of pyramiding from § 4.14; TBI residual treatment from DC 8045 in § 4.124a; secondary service connection from § 3.310; direct connection from § 3.303; and the SMC framework from § 3.350. Criteria checked against the eCFR current text on 2026-08-06. The public DBQ structure was checked against VA's current Loss of Sense of Smell and/or Taste DBQ.
• Board statistics: No verified aggregate Board-outcome cut specific to smell or taste loss claims was available, and no figure was borrowed from a different condition, so this page publishes no outcome statistic.
• Limitations:
• Whether a loss is complete, and whether the basis is anatomical or pathological versus conductive, are examiner determinations on the individual workup; this page describes the criteria, not their application to any claim.
• Post-viral and post-traumatic recovery patterns vary widely; population-level recovery figures were deliberately omitted as not decision-relevant for any individual.
• The COVID-19 lane is described at the general education level and does not address any pending presumptive or policy changes.
• These observations reflect the regulatory text and claim patterns, not legal or medical advice for a specific case.