Citation Nr: 18141378 Decision Date: 10/11/18 Archive Date: 10/10/18 DOCKET NO. 15-14 637 DATE: October 11, 2018 ORDER Recognition of K. as the Veteran’s dependent spouse for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) purposes is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for lichen planopilaris is remanded. FINDING OF FACT 1. In October 1996, the Veteran and R. were married. 2. The Veteran’s and R.’s previous marriages were properly ended by divorce prior to their marriage to each other.; thus, they are legally married to each other. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for recognition of R. as the Veteran’s dependent spouse for VA purposes have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(31), 103 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(j), 3.204, 3.205 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from September 1963 to August 1967 and from September 1972 to August 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. The Veteran testified at a November 2017 Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the hearing transcript is associated with the claims file. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the appellant and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 1. Entitlement to recognition of R. as the Veteran’s dependent spouse for VA purposes. A veteran who is in receipt of disability compensation of 30 percent or more is entitled to an additional allowance for each dependent. 38 U.S.C. § 1115. Here, the Veteran contends that he is eligible for additional dependency benefits for his current spouse, R. A “spouse” is defined for VA purposes as a person whose marriage to the veteran is valid under the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of the marriage, or the law of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(j), 3.50(a). Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(j), “marriage” means a marriage valid under the law of the place where the parties resided at the time of marriage, or the law of the place where the parties resided when the right to benefits accrued. A valid marriage may be established by various types of documentary evidence together with the claimant’s certified statement concerning the date, place, and circumstances of dissolution of any prior marriage, provided that such facts, if they were to be corroborated by the evidence, would warrant acceptance of the marriage as valid. 38 C.F.R. § 3.205(a). When the claimant’s statement concerning marriage conflicts with other evidence of record, additional evidence is required to accept a marriage as valid or as dissolved. 38 C.F.R. § 3.204(a)(2). Where it is necessary to determine if a prior marriage was dissolved due to conflicting evidence in the record, proof of termination of a prior marriage can be shown by proof of death or a certified copy or certified abstract of a final decree of divorce or annulment specifically reciting the effects of the decree. 38 C.F.R. § 3.205(b). It is pertinent to note that current law allows that VA will, with certain exceptions, accept the statement of a claimant as proof of marriage, dissolution of a marriage, or death of a dependent. See 38 U.S.C. § 5124 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.204(a)(1) (2017). There is no indication of a statement on its face that raises a question of its validity, nor is there a reasonable indication, in the claimant’s statement or otherwise, of fraud or misrepresentation of the relationships in question. 38 U.S.C. § 5124(c) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.204(a)(2) (2017). Here, the Veteran’s service-connected disabilities are rated at least 30 percent from August 31, 2010. As such, the threshold criteria of a minimum 30 percent disability rating for basic entitlement to additional payment for dependents has been met since August 31, 2010. 38 U.S.C. § 1115. By way of background, the record shows that the Veteran was married several times. He was previously married to M.K.L. in July 1966, but this marriage ended in Divorce in January 1973. See December 1977 and October 2011 VA Form 21-686(c), Declaration of Marital Status. He then married S. in September 1973, but this marriage ended in Divorce on February 6, 1975. See December 1977 VA Form 21-686(c) and February 1975 Judgement and Decree. He was married to P. on February 7, 1975, but this marriage ended in divorce in March 1992 and P. died in 2006. See February 1975 Marriage License and March 2013 VA Form 21-686(c). He married R., his current spouse, in October 1995. See October 1995 Certified Abstract of Marriage. The record also shows that R. was previously married to C., but that this marriage ended in divorce in June 1993. See June 1993 Divorce Decree. The RO denied the claim because the Veteran had not submitted a copy of the court order dissolving his marriage to S. However, in November 2017, the Veteran submitted a copy of the February 1975 Judgment and Decree that dissolved his marriage to S, and the Board finds that this court order has the proper signature and seal. Therefore, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted to VA all the information required under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(j), 3.205(a) to establish the validity of his current marriage to R. For these reasons, R. is recognized as the Veteran’s current dependent spouse for VA purposes. 38 U.S.C. § 5124 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.204, 3.205, 3.206 (2017). REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for lichen planopilaris remanded. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination, it must ensure that the examination is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). In May 2013, the Veteran was afforded a VA skin diseases examination. The VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s scalp rash, to include lichen planopilaris, is less likely as not caused by or a result of service. In support of this negative nexus opinion, the VA examiner stated that there is insufficient evidence in medical records to support the claim that the scalp rash started in service. However, the examiner did not address the Veteran’s competent reports that his scalp skin rash manifested during service and has been recurrent since service. For these reasons, the May 2013 VA examiner’s opinion is inadequate and remand is required to obtain an addendum medical opinion. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007) (wherein the Court determined an examination was inadequate because the examiner did not comment on the Veteran’s report of in-service injury and, instead, relied on the absence of evidence in his service treatment records to provide a negative opinion); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007) (holding that a lay person is competent to identify the presence of disability or symptoms of disability subject to lay observation). In addition, the Veteran reported during the November 2017 Board hearing that he sought treatment for his skin rash during a port visit in 1965 to either “Yokosuka, Japan or Subic Beach, Philippines.” This may have been at the base hospital. The Veteran has submitted a history of the USS Dennis J. Buckley for 1965, which indicates that the ship was in the following ports in 1965: Subic Bay, Philippine Islands; Yokosuka, Japan; Sasebo, Japan; and Hong Kong. The Veteran also noted that his service treatment records are missing for the entire period he spent on the USS Dennis J. Buckley. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s updated VA treatment records and any identified private treatment records. 2. Obtain all outstanding service treatment records, including all service treatment records from the period in 1965 when he was stationed on the USS Dennis J. Buckley. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If the records are unavailable, a formal finding of unavailability should be sent to the Veteran and his representative, and a copy should be associated with the record. 3. Request and obtain any hospital records pertaining to treatment received military hospitals in Yokosuka, Japan and Subic Bay, Philippines in 1965. All reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If the records are unavailable, a formal finding of unavailability should be sent to the Veteran and his representative, and a copy should be associated with the record. 4. Obtain a medical opinion from a dermatologist as to the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s currently diagnosed lichen planopilaris. The entire claims file, including a copy of this Remand, should be made available to, and be reviewed by, the dermatologist, and the dermatologist must specifically acknowledge receipt and review of these materials in any reports generated. An examination is not required, unless deemed necessary by the dermatologist. After reviewing the claims file, the dermatologist is asked to: Provide an opinion as to whether the Veteran’s current lichen planopilaris is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) related to, caused by, or aggravated by service, to include presumed exposure to herbicide agents. **In providing this opinion, the dermatologist should note the following: (a) The April 1973 service treatment record indicating that the Veteran had recurrent eczema prior to enlistment and it had become moderate to severe and continuous during service. (b) The Veteran’s competent description during the November 2017 Board hearing of his recurrent skin rash symptoms during service, specifically that the skin rash initially manifested in 1965, while aboard ship during his first period of service, was treated during service, and has been recurrent since service. 5. Then, readjudicate the claim on appeal. DEBORAH W. SINGLETON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Thomas, Associate Counsel