Citation Nr: 18148023
Decision Date: 11/06/18	Archive Date: 11/06/18

DOCKET NO. 18-11 042A
DATE:	November 6, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for 2017 is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran had active military service from July 1994 to January 1997.
This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2017 administrative decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (MC) in Birmingham, Alabama.
Clothing allowance
According to VA medical records contained in the Veteran’s file, the Veteran was issued a back brace in June 2014.  In February 2014, a prosthetics request was submitted for a low back brace for the Veteran.  It appears that a LSO Flex corset brace was delivered in June 2014.  Finally, the Veteran’s VA clinical records show that his prescribed medications include a topical cream Menthol/M-salicylate 10-15%.  Although it is not clear from the medical record, the Veteran reports that the cream was been prescribed for pain caused by his service-connected low back disability and caused staining and irreparable damage to his clothing.  Indeed, the Veteran submitted a document showing that Menthol/M-salicylate 10-15% can be used to treat a backache. 
As best the Board can discern, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) has denied the claim solely on the basis that the Veteran’s back brace does not cause damage to his clothing and that service-connection is not in effect for any skin disability.  However, the AOJ failed to consider whether the criteria for an annual clothing allowance were met based on the damage caused by the cream prescribed for the Veteran’s service-connected low back disability.  To avoid the possibility to prejudice, a remand is necessary so that the AOJ may consider these questions in the first instance.  See Bernard v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 384, 394 (1993).
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
The AOJ should reconsider the issue of entitlement to an annual clothing allowance, considering all of the evidence of record.  The AOJ should specifically consider the Veteran’s statement that Menthol/M-salicylate 10-15% is used to treat his service-connected low back disability.  If the decision is adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow appropriate time for response.  Then, return the case to the Board.
 
Kristin Haddock
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	I. Cannaday, Associate Counsel