Citation Nr: 18148457 Decision Date: 11/08/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 14-33 357 DATE: November 8, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a rash is denied. REMANDED The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. The claim for service connection for bilateral hand arthritis is remanded. The claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition is remanded. The claim for a TDIU is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current skin rash condition. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a rash are not satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1965 to September 1967. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Columbia, South Carolina. 1. Service connection for a rash is denied. The Veteran states that he was treated for a rash on his back during active service. See August 2012 VA Form 21-4138. He has submitted a copy of a prescription issued at Fort Bragg which he states was for medication for the rash. For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is not established. Law Service connection will generally be awarded when a veteran has a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To establish service connection on a direct basis, the evidence must show (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a link or nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Analysis The Board finds that the Veteran was treated for a rash on his back during service. However, he does not state that a rash on his back or other areas of his body occurred at any time during this claim, or that it manifested shortly before he submitted it. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 303 (2013); McLain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). The evidence of record, including the VA treatment records, does not show findings or reports of a skin rash. Accordingly, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have a current skin rash condition. In the absence of a current disability, service connection cannot be established. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366 (holding that an element of service connection is evidence of a current disability); Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F. 3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (upholding VA’s interpretation of sections 1110 and 1131 of the statute as requiring the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (“In the absence of proof of present disability there can be no valid claim.”) (citation omitted). Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. The claim for service connection for bilateral hearing loss is remanded. A new VA medical opinion should be obtained. The Veteran had noise exposure during active service while serving in Vietnam as a gunner and cannon crew member in an artillery unit. He has stated that his hearing was impaired at times. See August 2012 VA Form 21-4138. While the statement is somewhat ambiguous as to whether he was referring to present hearing impairment or to his time in service, the Board will assume he meant experiencing hearing loss during service, as the statement is otherwise focused on what occurred during service. In the June 2013 VA examination report, the examiner concluded that the Veteran’s hearing loss was less likely than not related to in-service noise exposure due to a normal audiogram at separation. The examiner explained that there is no evidence that noise exposure causes a delayed onset of hearing loss. However, the opinion does not address the Veteran’s statement that he did experience hearing loss at times during service. Accordingly, it is not sufficient to make an informed decision. The Board also notes that the service treatment records in the file appear to be incomplete. There is a separation examination report and immunization records, but no entrance examination report or records of treatment. A request should be made to the Records Management Center (RMC) for any records it may have. The Veteran should also be notified of this fact, and asked to submit any records he has in his possession. 2. The claim for service connection for bilateral hand arthritis is remanded. The Veteran indicated that he has received treatment at the Dorn VA Medical Center for his hand arthritis since 1987. See February 2010 VA Form 21-4142. There are no VA treatment records in the file dated prior to 2001. Appropriate efforts must be made to obtain any VA treatment records dated from 1987 to 2001. Moreover, as discussed above, further efforts must be made to obtain any missing service treatment records. 3. The claim for service connection for a bilateral eye condition is remanded. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in June 2013, and was diagnosed with bilateral cataracts, bilateral glaucoma, and left eye pterygium. The examiner did not opine as to whether the Veteran’s diagnosed eye conditions were related to his military service. See June 2013 VA Eye Examination Report. The Veteran asserts that his eye condition is the result of exposure to smoke and gas from discharging artillery in Vietnam. See August 2012 Statement in Support of Claim. The Board finds that a medical opinion is warranted. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006). 4. The claim for a TDIU is remanded. Because the outcome of the above claims might affect the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, the Board will not address this issue at present. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (two issues are “inextricably intertwined” when they are so closely tied together that a final decision on one issue cannot be rendered until a decision on the other issue has been rendered). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Submit a request to the Records Management Center for any service treatment records for the Veteran that may be in its possession. A copy of the request and the RMC’s response must be associated with the file. The Veteran should also be notified that the service treatment records in his claim file seem incomplete. He should be asked to submit any such records in his possession. 2. Obtain and add to the file any VA treatment records for the Veteran from the Columbia VA Health Care System (Dorn VA Medical Center) dated from 1987 to 2001. 3. Add to the file any outstanding VA treatment records dated since August 2014. 4. Obtain a new medical nexus opinion regarding the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss, as specified below. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50% probability or more) that the Veteran’s bilateral hearing loss is related to in-service noise exposure from artillery fire and guns while serving in Vietnam. The examiner should consider the Veteran’s statement that he experienced hearing impairment at times (August 2012 VA Form 21-4138). 5. Obtain a medical nexus opinion regarding the Veteran’s eye disorders, as specified below. The examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50% probability or more) that the Veteran has a current eye condition, including diagnosed cataracts, glaucoma, or left eye pterygium, related to firing artillery in Vietnam. The Veteran states that he was exposed to gas and smoke produced by the artillery. J. Rutkin Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. M. Stedman, Associate Counsel