Vertigo VA Rating

Across 6,005 decided Board rulings on vertigo from 2021 to 2026, 23.2% were granted, 24.9% denied and 52% remanded. A ruling is one issue the Board decided in one decision; one decision often rules on several issues. Most veterans who file vertigo claims are filing them under one of two diagnostic codes: DC 6204 for peripheral vestibular disorders or DC 6205 for Meniere's syndrome. Claim Raven's data tracks Meniere's disease as its own condition, and vertigo rulings far outnumber Meniere's rulings at the Board. That split looks routine until you look at the rating ladders.

DC 6204 tops out at 30%. The entire schedule is two tiers: 10% for occasional dizziness, 30% for dizziness with occasional staggering. There is no 60%, no 100%. DC 6205, the Meniere's code, has a different ladder: 30%, 60%, 100%, based on the frequency of attacks of vertigo and on hearing impairment, with or without tinnitus.

That 30%-versus-100% gap is the structural cliff in this entire diagnostic area. A veteran with frequent vertigo attacks can rate at 30% under DC 6204 or up to 100% under DC 6205, depending on whether the file supports a Meniere's diagnosis with hearing impairment or only a general peripheral vestibular disorder diagnosis. I want to walk through why the code question matters so much, why the tinnitus-to-vertigo secondary chain is the most common claim pathway and what the medicine behind it actually supports, where the TBI overlap fits, and what wins a vertigo claim once the diagnostic code question is settled.

This page covers the vertigo rating chart (DC 6204 and DC 6205), how much VA pays, the 10 versus 30 percent line, vertigo and Meniere's disease, vertigo secondary to tinnitus, hearing loss and migraine, vertigo as a TBI residual, how to prove vertigo is service connected, the C&P exam, VA's proposed rating changes, and why VA denies vertigo claims.

TL;DR

• Across 6,005 decided Board rulings on vertigo from 2021 to 2026, 23.2% were granted, 24.9% denied and 52% remanded. That grant rate is 1.5 points below the Board-wide 24.7 percent, and more than half of decided rulings were remanded.
• DC 6204 (peripheral vestibular disorders) caps at 30%. DC 6205 (Meniere's) offers a 30/60/100 ladder, and VA rates Meniere's either under DC 6205 or by rating vertigo, hearing loss and tinnitus separately, whichever comes out higher.
• Getting service connected is the hard part. Vertigo rating appeals were granted far more often than vertigo service connection claims; the Board section below shows results by what the appeal asked for.
• Secondary claims make up most vertigo service connection rulings, and tinnitus and hearing loss are the conditions they most often name. Direct and secondary claims were granted at about the same rate, and claims that argued a presumption did worst.
• When the Board denies vertigo service connection, the most common reason is no current diagnosed disability. When it sends a claim back, the most common reason is an inadequate VA exam or opinion.
• VA proposed in 2022 to rate DC 6204 at 10, 30 or 100 percent based on how symptoms limit work and self-care. As of early October 2026 that proposal is not final.

Vertigo VA rating criteria (DC 6204 and DC 6205)

Here's where the framework gets interesting, and where the most consequential structural feature sits.

The two diagnostic codes side by side

Under 38 CFR § 4.87, the rating schedule for ear diseases breaks vertigo and related vestibular conditions into separate diagnostic codes.

• DC 6204 (Peripheral Vestibular Disorders): 10% for occasional dizziness. 30% for dizziness and occasional staggering. That's the entire ladder. The note to the schedule states that objective findings supporting the diagnosis of vestibular disequilibrium are required before a compensable evaluation can be assigned, and that hearing impairment or suppuration shall be separately rated and combined.

• DC 6205 (Meniere's Syndrome): 30% for hearing impairment with vertigo less than once a month, with or without tinnitus. 60% for hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring from one to four times a month, with or without tinnitus. 100% for hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait occurring more than once weekly, with or without tinnitus.

The note to DC 6205 adds a choice that matters. VA evaluates Meniere's syndrome either under the DC 6205 criteria or by separately rating vertigo (as a peripheral vestibular disorder), hearing impairment and tinnitus, whichever method results in the higher overall evaluation. It cannot do both: a rating for hearing impairment, tinnitus or vertigo is not combined with a DC 6205 rating.

Vertigo, tinnitus and hearing loss as separate ratings

Outside Meniere's, the schedule lets these ratings stack. The note to DC 6204 says hearing impairment is rated separately and combined, and Note (1) to DC 6260 says a separate tinnitus rating may be combined with a DC 6204 rating, unless the tinnitus is what supports the DC 6204 rating. A veteran with service-connected tinnitus, hearing loss and a peripheral vestibular disorder can hold three ratings, as long as no symptom is counted twice under 38 CFR § 4.14.

Rating appeals by diagnostic code

DC 6204 comes up far more often than DC 6205 in vertigo rating appeals at the Board. The Board section below shows rating appeals by diagnostic code. The structural cliff between the two codes sits in the regulation itself: veterans with a Meniere's diagnosis can climb the 30/60/100 ladder, and veterans with a peripheral vestibular disorder diagnosis cap at 30%.

How much VA pays for vertigo

For a single veteran with no dependents, using VA's rates effective December 1, 2025 (the 2026 rates), the tiers pay as follows.

• 10%: $180.42 per month, $2,165 per year
• 30%: $552.47 per month, $6,630 per year
• 60%: $1,435.02 per month, $17,220 per year
• 100%: $3,938.58 per month, $47,263 per year

The jump from 30% to 100% is $3,386.11 per month, or about $40,633 per year, tax-free. That's the dollar value of the diagnostic-code question.

Vertigo 10 vs 30 percent: what occasional staggering means

Under DC 6204, the 10% tier covers "occasional dizziness." The 30% tier covers "dizziness and occasional staggering," and 30% is the maximum under DC 6204. The dividing line between 10% and 30% is the staggering element: whether the dizziness produces balance disturbance severe enough to cause occasional loss of balance or actual falls, and whether the record shows it.

The 10% cases are usually cases where the record shows the following.

• The vertigo is mild and intermittent
• The episodes are brief (seconds to minutes) without significant balance disturbance
• There's no documented history of falls or near-falls
• The chart language describes "occasional dizziness" without staggering

The 30% cases are usually cases where the record shows the following.

• The vertigo episodes produce balance disturbance
• There's documented history of falls, near-falls, or staggering
• The chart language explicitly describes the staggering element
• The functional impact on daily activities is documented

The cases that climb higher than 30% are almost exclusively running under DC 6205 (Meniere's). The 60% tier under DC 6205 requires attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait one to four times per month. The 100% tier requires attacks more than once weekly. Both higher tiers also require hearing impairment, which means the file has to support not just severe vertigo but also hearing loss. Tinnitus is not required: each DC 6205 level applies "with or without tinnitus."

Vertigo or Meniere's disease: the diagnosis sets the ceiling

For veterans with vertigo, the clinical question of whether the picture meets Meniere's criteria is the most important variable in the entire claim.

Meniere's disease is a specific diagnosis. The 2015 international criteria (Lopez-Escamez, Journal of Vestibular Research) require episodes of vertigo lasting 20 minutes to 12 hours, low- to medium-frequency sensorineural hearing loss in one ear shown on a hearing test, and fluctuating ear symptoms (hearing, tinnitus or fullness) in that ear. Peripheral vestibular disorder is a broader category that covers conditions such as benign paroxysmal positional vertigo (BPPV), vestibular neuritis and loss of vestibular function in both ears (Strupp, Current Opinion in Neurology, 2019).

A veteran with fluctuating hearing loss, episodic vertigo attacks, and tinnitus or fullness in the same ear has a clinical picture consistent with Meniere's. A veteran with episodic vertigo and no hearing loss has a picture more consistent with vestibular neuritis or BPPV: a peripheral vestibular disorder, not Meniere's.

For veterans whose clinical picture genuinely matches Meniere's, the climb from 30% to 60% or 100% is structurally available but requires documentation of how often attacks occur and of cerebellar gait disturbance during episodes. That documentation typically comes from neurology or otolaryngology evaluation with vestibular testing (such as electronystagmography, video head impulse testing and vestibular evoked myogenic potentials) and audiometry showing the low- to medium-frequency sensorineural hearing loss the criteria describe. The Meniere's disease guide covers that rating in full.

Vertigo secondary to tinnitus or hearing loss

Secondary claims make up most vertigo service connection rulings at the Board, and they are concentrated in a specific pattern: vertigo claimed as flowing from an already service-connected condition that affects the inner ear or the nervous system. Tinnitus is the condition vertigo is most often claimed secondary to, followed by hearing loss, and at a distance by migraine and TBI. Direct and secondary claims were granted at about the same rate. The Board section below lists the secondary pairs and shows how direct, secondary and presumptive claims fared. The vertigo secondary to tinnitus page covers the most common of these claims in full, and secondary conditions to tinnitus lists the others.

Under 38 CFR § 3.310, vertigo is service connected as secondary if a service-connected condition caused it, or aggravated it, meaning the vertigo would be less severe but for the service-connected condition. An opinion that addresses only causation and skips aggravation is inadequate (El-Amin v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 136 (2013)).

Vertigo secondary to tinnitus

This is the most common vertigo pair at the Board, and it is where the medical reasoning needs the most care. Tinnitus is a symptom, and the medical support for this pair usually rests on a shared cause in the inner ear rather than on the ringing itself producing the dizziness. Meniere's disease produces both: the 2015 criteria list tinnitus among the ear symptoms that come with its vertigo attacks. Noise is another shared cause. A 2025 study of noise-exposed workers (Kuo, International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health) found vestibular dysfunction on testing more often than in unexposed workers, alongside the expected hearing damage.

For tinnitus, the most common service-connected disability in VA's fiscal year 2025 Annual Benefits Report (3,583,295 service-connected tinnitus disabilities among compensation recipients), that has a practical meaning. If your tinnitus and your vertigo both trace to the same in-service noise or blast exposure, a direct claim for vertigo based on that event may be the stronger theory, with the secondary theory argued in the alternative. Either way, the opinion has to explain the mechanism in your case, not just note that both conditions exist.

Vertigo secondary to hearing loss

The same logic extends to hearing loss. Sensorineural hearing loss and vestibular dysfunction can come from the same inner-ear injury, and the noise study above found both in exposed workers. A veteran with service-connected sensorineural hearing loss who develops vertigo has a medically supportable secondary claim if the otologic workup shows vestibular involvement and the opinion explains the link.

Vertigo secondary to migraine (vestibular migraine)

Migraine-associated vertigo, called vestibular migraine, is a recognized diagnosis. The criteria from the Bárány Society and the International Headache Society (Lempert, Journal of Vestibular Research, 2022) require recurrent vestibular symptoms of moderate or severe intensity lasting 5 minutes to 72 hours, a history of migraine, migraine symptoms during the vestibular episodes, and no better explanation. For veterans with service-connected migraines, a secondary vertigo claim through the vestibular migraine pathway is supportable when the clinical picture matches.

Vertigo and the cervical spine

Veterans sometimes claim dizziness secondary to a service-connected neck condition. The medical support is weak: the Bárány Society's 2022 position on "cervical dizziness" (Seemungal, Journal of Vestibular Research) found the evidence for a mechanistic link between vertigo and neck pathology is lacking, and named migraine, including vestibular migraine, as by far the most common cause of neck pain combined with vestibular symptoms. A claim on this theory needs an unusually specific opinion.

Vertigo as a TBI residual (DC 8045)

For veterans whose vertigo is a residual of traumatic brain injury, the rating analysis starts with DC 8045 in 38 CFR § 4.124a. The 2008 revision of DC 8045 names three main areas of dysfunction: cognitive, emotional/behavioral, and physical. Cognitive impairment and subjective symptoms are scored on a table of 10 facets, where the highest facet sets that rating at 0%, 10%, 40%, 70%, or 100%. Physical residuals are rated under their own diagnostic codes and combined.

Balance problems fall under the physical area, which DC 8045 says to rate under an appropriate diagnostic code, such as DC 6204. Dizziness that has no separate diagnosis is instead an example in the subjective symptoms facet of the TBI table ("intermittent dizziness" appears at level 1). A residual with a distinct diagnosis, such as Meniere's disease, is rated under its own code rather than in the table.

The pyramiding question (whether vertigo gets counted in the DC 8045 table or rated separately under DC 6204) depends on the symptom attribution in the case. The rules in DC 8045 and 38 CFR § 4.14 come down to three points.

• The same dizziness or balance symptoms cannot support both a TBI table rating and a DC 6204 rating
• If the manifestations of two conditions cannot be clearly separated, VA assigns a single evaluation under whichever criteria better assess the overall impaired functioning
• If vertigo is rated separately under DC 6204, that rating and the TBI table rating combine using the standard combined-rating math at 38 CFR § 4.25

The medical link is well documented in veterans. A study of 570,248 post-9/11 veterans in VA care (Swan, Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 2020) found that those diagnosed with vestibular dysfunction or nonspecific dizziness were about twice as likely to have evidence of TBI. The same pyramiding analysis applies to other TBI residuals like migraine (DC 8100) and PTSD (DC 9411); the TBI guide covers DC 8045 in full. The strategic question for veterans with TBI plus separable vertigo is whether to push for separate ratings or accept the DC 8045 rating, and the answer depends on the symptom picture.

How to prove vertigo is service connected

Every vertigo claim needs a current diagnosis first. After that, the evidence depends on the theory.

Direct service connection

For direct connection, the file needs an in-service event that plausibly caused the vestibular dysfunction: acoustic trauma, head injury, infection, ototoxic medication exposure, or barotrauma. Service treatment records showing dizziness, ear complaints or a head injury, along with your own account of when the symptoms started, help show the in-service part.

Nexus letter for vertigo

What separates strong from weak opinions in vertigo cases comes down to a few features.

• Strong nexus opinions are written by an otolaryngologist, neurologist, or otoneurologist with relevant expertise, walk through the specific vestibular pathology, identify the in-service event or exposure that triggered the condition (acoustic trauma, head injury, infection, ototoxic medication exposure), address competing causes and exclude them, cite the relevant medical literature, and arrive at an "at least as likely as not" or stronger conclusion with reasoning.
• Weak nexus opinions are written by a generalist provider without relevant expertise, state conclusions without showing pathophysiologic reasoning, fail to address the specific vestibular dysfunction, ignore competing causes, or rely on generic statements about service.

In the Board's vertigo rulings, a favorable opinion the Board credited nearly always meant a grant, because relying on it is how the Board grants, and claims with a private medical opinion in the record were granted more often than vertigo claims overall, an association rather than proof of cause. The Board section below shows what the Board did with medical opinions in vertigo claims.

Lay statements that describe your episodes

The lay statement is doing a specific job in vertigo cases. The Board uses it to characterize the frequency, severity, and functional impact of vertigo episodes, variables that are otherwise hard to document objectively. When the Board found the veteran's statements credible, vertigo claims decided on the merits were granted far more often than when it did not. A credibility finding is often part of how the Board writes a grant, so read that as an association, not a cause, but it shows how much weight the Board puts on whether it believes the veteran's account.

What makes lay statements work for vertigo comes down to specifics.

• Specific dates of episodes
• Specific descriptions of what happened (falling, near-falling, gripping a wall, sitting down on the floor, vomiting)
• Specific impact (couldn't work that day, couldn't drive, missed a meeting, had to leave a function)
• Witness corroboration (spouse, coworker, friend who saw an episode); a buddy statement can capture it
• Frequency over time (weekly, monthly, daily during a flare)

The generic descriptions ("I have vertigo sometimes," "I get dizzy") don't produce the same effect. The specific descriptions do.

Presumptive claims

Vertigo is not on the major presumptive lists. The PACT Act list in 38 U.S.C. § 1120 does not include it, and neither does the Agent Orange list in 38 U.S.C. § 1116. For Persian Gulf veterans, the undiagnosed illness rule in 38 U.S.C. § 1117 counts neurological signs and symptoms among the possible signs of an undiagnosed illness, so dizziness with no diagnosis behind it can fit there. Since the PACT Act, the statute covers a qualifying disability that became manifest to any degree at any time, and it counts service during the Persian Gulf War in the Southwest Asia theater, Afghanistan, Israel, Egypt, Turkey, Syria or Jordan. VA's regulation, 38 CFR § 3.317, has not been rewritten to match and still prints the older deadline and location list, so rely on the statute. Once a clinician diagnoses a specific vestibular disorder, that route no longer fits, and the claim needs direct or secondary proof. Claims that argued a presumption did worst of the three theories at the Board.

What wins a vertigo claim

Pulling the patterns together, the vertigo claims that succeed at the Board usually have a few things in common.

A specialist diagnosis under the right diagnostic code. Otolaryngology or otoneurology evaluation with vestibular function testing and audiometry is the foundation. If the clinical picture supports Meniere's syndrome, the case should be rated under DC 6205 or under the separate-ratings method, whichever is higher, and the ceiling becomes 100%. If the picture supports a peripheral vestibular disorder without the Meniere's components, the case is under DC 6204 with a 30% ceiling.

A documented in-service event or qualifying secondary condition. Neither direct nor secondary claims carry the case without the workup; they were granted at about the same rate at the Board.

A strong nexus opinion that walks through the pathophysiology. The opinion needs to identify the specific in-service event or secondary pathway, address the vestibular pathology, exclude competing causes, and arrive at an "at least as likely as not" conclusion with reasoning. Generic primary care notes don't move these cases. Specialist opinions do.

Documented severity supporting the higher rating tier. Staggering and balance disturbance for 30% under DC 6204. Frequency of attacks (one to four per month for 60% under DC 6205, more than weekly for 100%), with cerebellar gait during attacks for the higher DC 6205 tiers. The specialist evaluation usually produces this language; primary care documentation often doesn't.

Specific lay statements with corroboration. The strongest lay statements describe specific episodes with dates, what happened, who witnessed it, and what the impact was. Spousal statements and coworker statements that corroborate the veteran's account add weight.

Strategic handling of TBI overlap when applicable. For veterans with service-connected TBI, the question of whether vertigo gets separately rated under DC 6204 or absorbed into the subjective symptoms facet of the DC 8045 table depends on the symptom attribution and the rating math.

None of this is a guarantee. The 23.2% overall grant rate is an average across every vertigo file the Board decided, strong and weak alike. But the structural levers that move vertigo outcomes (diagnostic code selection, specialist evaluation, strong nexus, documented severity, specific lay statements) are knowable, and the cases that grant tend to have them.

The vertigo C&P exam and specialist testing

A compensable DC 6204 rating needs objective findings supporting the diagnosis of vestibular disequilibrium, so the exam record matters more than for many conditions. The implication is that an otolaryngology or neurology consultation is high-yield for vertigo claims. The specialist evaluation does four things.

• Confirms or excludes the diagnosis using objective vestibular testing
• Differentiates between DC 6204 (peripheral vestibular disorder) and DC 6205 (Meniere's) when the clinical picture is ambiguous
• Documents the frequency and severity of episodes
• Characterizes the functional impact in clinical language the rater can use

Without the specialist evaluation, the file is dependent on primary care documentation and the C&P examiner's evaluation, which is more variable. Before the exam, write down how often episodes happen, how long they last, whether you stagger or fall, and what you have to stop doing during one. C&P exam prep can help you organize it. When the Board sends a vertigo claim back, the most common reason is an inadequate VA exam or medical opinion; the Board section below shows the remand reasons and what happened after a remand.

Proposed VA vertigo rating changes

In February 2022 VA proposed rewriting the ear, nose, throat and respiratory chapters of the rating schedule ("Schedule for Rating Disabilities," 87 FR 8474, February 15, 2022). For vertigo, it would change both codes.

• DC 6204 would gain a 100 percent level. Ratings would turn on how symptoms over the last six months limit work and self-care: 10 percent for symptoms that require brief, temporary changes in activity; 30 percent for symptoms frequent enough to require routine limits on activities that you can manage with effort and some accommodation; and 100 percent for symptoms that prevent work or self-care and leave you unable to do routine daily activities without help from others, even with accommodation. The objective-findings requirement would stay.
• DC 6205 would drop the "cerebellar gait" wording. It would rate 30 percent for vertigo less than once a month and 60 percent for vertigo one to four times a month, with 100 percent for vertigo five or more times a month or persistent disequilibrium and gait instability, all with hearing loss. A new note would require the Meniere's diagnosis to be made by an otolaryngologist or neurologist, and frequency would be averaged over six months. Tinnitus would no longer be part of the separate-ratings alternative.

Status. As of early October 2026 VA has not published a final rule. The September 2024 supplemental notice on the same rulemaking (89 FR 74162) only proposed adding constrictive bronchiolitis to the respiratory chapter. Until a final rule takes effect, the current § 4.87 criteria on this page are the rules VA and the Board apply. Under 38 CFR § 3.951(a), a change to the rating schedule is not grounds to reduce a rating already in effect unless the condition has actually improved.

Why VA denies vertigo claims

Vertigo claims do a little worse at the Board than the average claim. Across 6,005 decided Board rulings on vertigo from 2021 to 2026, 23.2% were granted, 24.9% denied and 52% remanded. That grant rate is 1.5 points below the Board-wide 24.7 percent, measured over 1,241,238 decided rulings. Remand is the most common outcome by a wide margin: more than half of decided vertigo rulings went back for more development.

Vertigo is harder to document objectively than most physical conditions, it overlaps with several other diagnostic codes, and it depends on clinical evaluation more than imaging or lab tests. When the Board denies vertigo service connection, the most common reason is that the record shows no current diagnosed disability, followed by no link to service and then no in-service event. Severity disputes are the other wall. Both are clinical evaluation problems as much as nexus problems.

The diagnosis-missing denials usually involve the following.

• Self-reported "dizziness" without clinical workup
• Symptoms that could be attributable to multiple causes (medication side effects, anxiety, dehydration, cardiac arrhythmia) without objective vestibular testing
• A working diagnosis of "vertigo" from primary care without specialist confirmation
• Absent vestibular function testing
• Absent audiometry where Meniere's is being considered

The nexus denials usually involve an opinion against the claim that the record does not answer, or a favorable opinion with no reasoning, or a secondary opinion that never addresses aggravation.

The severity-insufficient denials of a higher rating usually involve the following.

• A confirmed diagnosis but insufficient documentation of the staggering element
• Episodes described as "brief" or "mild" without functional impact documentation
• Chart language characterizing the symptoms as "intermittent" or "stable on treatment"
• Absent description of impact on daily activities, work, or driving

The walls are connected. A clinical workup that produces a confirmed diagnosis of peripheral vestibular disorder or Meniere's syndrome usually also produces the symptom characterization that supports the higher rating tier. A workup that doesn't produce the formal diagnosis usually also doesn't produce the severity documentation, because both come from the same specialist evaluation. The Board section below shows how often each denial and remand reason came up.

What I Can't Tell You From This Data

There are real limits on what 6,005 decided Board rulings can teach you about your specific claim.

I can't tell you whether your vertigo clinically meets Meniere's syndrome criteria or peripheral vestibular disorder criteria. The diagnostic distinction is significant for the rating ceiling, and it requires specialist evaluation (usually otolaryngology or otoneurology) with vestibular function testing and audiometry.

I can't tell you whether your specific tinnitus, hearing loss, migraine, or TBI is medically connected to your current vertigo. The secondary chain analysis requires a specialist opinion that walks through the pathophysiology in your specific case.

I can't tell you whether your symptoms clear the staggering threshold for the 30% tier under DC 6204. That depends on what's in your treatment records and how the C&P examiner characterizes the severity. Some clinical pictures clearly clear the threshold; some clearly don't; many sit in the gray area where the rating analysis can go either way.

I can't tell you whether the TBI-residual pyramiding analysis will favor separate ratings or a DC 8045 rating in your case. That depends on the symptom attribution in your file, the C&P examiner's characterization of which symptoms are TBI-related versus separately compensable, and the specific judge handling the case.

I can't tell you whether a credible lay statement caused any particular grant. The Board often finds statements credible in the same breath as the grant, so the link shows association, not cause. My best reading is that lay evidence matters most for vertigo when it fills in what the chart can't: episode frequency, falls, and functional impact.

What the data can tell you is the structural shape of these claims at the Board. The 30%-versus-100% diagnostic-code cliff is real. Getting service connected is the hard part, and rating appeals go much better once it is done. A favorable opinion the Board credits nearly always means a grant, and a private medical opinion in the record goes with better odds. The specialist evaluation is high-yield.

What it can't tell you is which side of those distributions your case will land on.

Questions veterans ask about vertigo

Is vertigo a VA disability?

Yes. Once service connected, vertigo from a peripheral vestibular disorder is rated under DC 6204 at 10 or 30 percent, and vertigo from Meniere's syndrome under DC 6205 at 30, 60 or 100 percent. A compensable DC 6204 rating needs objective findings supporting the diagnosis.

What is the highest VA rating for vertigo?

Thirty percent under DC 6204, for dizziness and occasional staggering. Higher ratings come only through Meniere's syndrome under DC 6205, which reaches 100 percent for hearing impairment with attacks of vertigo and cerebellar gait more than once weekly.

Can vertigo be secondary to tinnitus?

It can, and it is the most common vertigo secondary claim at the Board. The medical opinion has to explain the link in your case, which usually runs through a shared inner-ear cause such as noise exposure or Meniere's disease, and address whether tinnitus caused or worsened the vertigo. If both trace to the same in-service event, a direct claim may be stronger.

Can you get separate VA ratings for vertigo, tinnitus and hearing loss?

Yes, outside Meniere's. The DC 6204 note says hearing impairment is rated separately and combined, and the tinnitus code allows a separate tinnitus rating alongside DC 6204. For Meniere's, VA uses either DC 6205 or the three separate ratings, whichever is higher, but not both.

Is vertigo a presumptive condition?

No. Vertigo is not on the PACT Act or Agent Orange lists. A Persian Gulf veteran with dizziness that no diagnosis explains may fit the undiagnosed illness rule in 38 U.S.C. § 1117, which since the PACT Act has no deadline for when the illness appears, but a diagnosed vestibular disorder needs direct or secondary proof.

Is vertigo rated as part of a TBI rating?

It depends on the diagnosis. Balance problems from TBI are rated under a separate code such as DC 6204, while dizziness with no separate diagnosis counts in the subjective symptoms part of the DC 8045 table. The same symptoms cannot support both ratings.

Bottom Line

Vertigo is rated under 38 CFR § 4.87 with two primary diagnostic codes: DC 6204 (peripheral vestibular disorders), which has a 10%/30% ladder that caps at 30%, and DC 6205 (Meniere's syndrome), which has a 30%/60%/100% ladder built on hearing impairment and the frequency of vertigo attacks, with or without tinnitus, or the separate-ratings alternative if that comes out higher. Across 6,005 decided Board rulings on vertigo from 2021 to 2026, 23.2% were granted, 24.9% denied and 52% remanded, a grant rate slightly below the Board-wide 24.7%. Vertigo rulings far outnumber Meniere's rulings at the Board, reflecting how specific a true Meniere's diagnosis is. Rating appeals did much better than service connection claims, and only DC 6205 reaches 60% or 100%. Secondary chains most often run through service-connected tinnitus and hearing loss, and the strongest opinions explain the shared inner-ear cause rather than just noting that both conditions exist. The TBI residual pathway under DC 8045 is a smaller but active chain, and the pyramiding analysis between DC 8045 and DC 6204 is worth working through when both could apply. The single most consequential variable in the entire framework is the diagnostic-code question: whether the clinical workup supports Meniere's syndrome (and the path to 60% or 100%) or only a peripheral vestibular disorder (capped at 30%). For a single veteran with no dependents, using rates effective December 1, 2025 (the 2026 rates), the difference between 30% and 100% is $3,386.11 per month, tax-free, which makes the otolaryngology or otoneurology evaluation the most valuable investment a veteran can make in this claim.

Methodology and Limitations

• Data source: Statistics in this post are drawn from Claim Raven's read of 511,036 Board decisions from 2021 to 2026, which contain 1,378,030 rulings, including 6,563 rulings on vertigo. Across 6,005 decided Board rulings on vertigo from 2021 to 2026, 23.2% were granted, 24.9% denied and 52% remanded. Rating criteria are from 38 CFR § 4.87 (ear diseases), including the notes to DCs 6204, 6205 and 6260. Secondary connection mechanics are from 38 CFR § 3.310. TBI rating framework is from 38 CFR § 4.124a DC 8045. The proposed changes are from 87 FR 8474 (February 15, 2022) and 89 FR 74162 (September 12, 2024). VA disability compensation figures are the rates effective December 1, 2025 (the 2026 rates) for a single veteran with no dependents. The tinnitus count is from VA's Annual Benefits Report for fiscal year 2025.
• Medical sources: Lopez-Escamez and colleagues, "Diagnostic criteria for Menière's disease," Journal of Vestibular Research (2015); Strupp and colleagues, "Peripheral vestibular disorders: an update," Current Opinion in Neurology (2019); Lempert and colleagues, "Vestibular migraine: Diagnostic criteria," Journal of Vestibular Research (2022); Seemungal and colleagues, "The Bárány Society position on 'Cervical Dizziness'," Journal of Vestibular Research (2022); Kuo and Chang, "Occupational noise exposure and its effects on hearing threshold shifts and otolithic vestibular functions in male workers," International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health (2025); Swan and colleagues, "Association of Traumatic Brain Injury With Vestibular Dysfunction and Dizziness in Post-9/11 Veterans," Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation (2020).
• Sample size: 6,005 decided rulings; another 558 dismissed or withdrawn rulings are excluded from the grant rate. Meniere's is tracked as a separate condition. Claim theories, secondary pairs, appeal types, diagnostic codes, medical opinion findings, and denial and remand reasons are shown in the Board section below rather than typed into the text.
• Classification approach: Rulings are grouped as vertigo from the issue the Board named in each decision. The medical-opinion findings record what the Board credited on a service connection ruling; they are not grades of evidence quality. Claim theory reflects the theory of service connection the Board addressed, which may not always match the original claim theory at the regional office. Lay-evidence coding reflects whether the Board found the veteran's lay statements credible.
• Limitations:
• The DC 6204 versus DC 6205 distinction is a clinical question that depends on specialist evaluation, vestibular function testing, and audiometry. The code a decision used is not necessarily the clinically optimal code for each case.
• The data records that a presumption was raised, not always which one. Vertigo isn't on the major presumptive lists, so a case invoking a presumption may be arguing it as a Gulf War undiagnosed illness symptom, which has its own diagnostic problems.
• The read does not record the rating tier assigned, so this page does not report a tier distribution.
• The medical-opinion findings, the private-opinion comparison and the lay-credibility comparison cover only rulings decided on the merits (granted or denied), not remands.
• Secondary-to-TBI rulings do not show whether vertigo was rated as a TBI residual or under DC 6204. The pyramiding analysis between the two codes is case-specific.
• The lay-credibility analysis is correlational. The Board often finds statements credible in the course of granting; the relationship between the finding and the outcome isn't purely causal. The same is true of the private-opinion comparison.
• Cases that made it to the BVA are not representative of all vertigo claims. Many vertigo claims are granted at the regional office or never appealed, and they don't appear in this dataset.
• These observations reflect patterns from BVA decisions. They are not predictions of individual outcomes.