Citation Nr: 18147451
Decision Date: 11/05/18	Archive Date: 11/05/18

DOCKET NO. 18-06 320
DATE:	November 5, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous is denied.
FINDING OF FACT
The Veteran’s subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous did not manifest during active service, and there is no indication that subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous is otherwise related to his active service.
CONCLUSION OF LAW
The criteria for service connection for subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous are not met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2018).
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION
The Veteran had active air service from June 1966 to April 1970.  This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).
Service Connection – Subacute Cutaneous Lupus Erythematous
The Veteran maintains that his subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous is related to in-service Agent Orange exposure.  He states that he worked as an aircraft mechanic at Langley Air Force Base and Hickman Airfield in Hawaii and that his duties required him to perform maintenance on the C-131 aircraft returning from Southeast Asia.  He states that those aircraft were equipped with spray racks on their wings and were used to disperse Agent Orange.
Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran does not claim nor does the evidence show that his subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous manifested during active service.  In a May 2017 letter, a private physician, Dr. W.K., stated that the condition was first diagnosed via a skin biopsy in July 2014.
Regarding Agent Orange exposure, the Veteran does not assert nor does the evidence show that he served in the Republic of Vietnam.  The Board notes that individuals who regularly and repeatedly operated, maintained, or served onboard C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray an herbicide agent during the Vietnam era are presumed ot have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent.  38 C.F.R. § 3.307(6)(v).  Although the Veteran was an aircraft mechanic, the evidence does not show that he regularly maintained C-123 aircraft known to have been used to spray herbicide agents.  A review of his military personnel records does not indicate that he worked on C-123 aircraft, and the Veteran did not serve with one of the listed affected units.  
The Board also notes that subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous is not listed among the diseases associated with exposure to herbicide agents.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e).  In addition, the Veteran has not submitted any evidence indicating that subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous may be associated with herbicide exposure. 
In this case, the Board finds the most probative evidence weighs against the claim.  Although the Veteran has a current diagnosis of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous, there is no evidence of the condition during service and no evidence that his subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous is otherwise etiologically related to his active service.  Following active service, the first complaints and objective evidence of subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous occurred over 44 years after discharge.  The passage of time between discharge from active service and the medical documentation of a claimed disability is a factor that tends to weigh against a claim for service connection.  Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000).  
The Board has also considered the lay evidence of record.  The Veteran is competent to describe what he has personally observed or experienced; however, the ultimate questions of diagnoses and etiology in this case extend beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship and are beyond the competence of lay witnesses.  
Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for subacute cutaneous lupus erythematous is not warranted.  38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2012); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).   
 
Kristin Haddock
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	S. Mishalanie, Counsel