Citation Nr: 18151218 Decision Date: 11/16/18 Archive Date: 11/16/18 DOCKET NO. 14-20 457 DATE: November 16, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, claimed as due to in-service herbicide agent exposure, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The competent evidence of record does not reflect that the Veteran has a skin condition that was manifested in, caused by, or is otherwise etiologically related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a skin condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1137, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served as active duty in the United States Marine Corps from February 1966 through February 1968, and with the United States Army from January 2003 through May 2004. The Veteran served with the Army National Guard from 1984 through his retirement in July 2004. This appeal arises before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2013 Rating Decision wherein service connection for skin condition was denied. This matter was also previously remanded by the Board in January 2016 and February 2018. The Veteran has separately perfected an appeal as to various issues involving his bilateral foot disabilities. Those issues have not been certified to the Board, however, so the Board declined jurisdiction over them at this time. They will be returned to the Board if otherwise in order at a later date. Service connection for skin condition The Veteran contends his skin condition should be service connected because of his active duty service in Vietnam. He advised he was in direct contact when aircraft sprayed the basecamp near Da Nang, Vietnam. The Veteran reported his skin came in contact with herbicide agents in the form of a mist. He advised he continues to suffer from a skin disease or rash since he left Vietnam in 1967 and that he treats the condition at least four times per year with Erythromycin and over the counter medications. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may also 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). Establishing service connection generally requires competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). In some circumstances, a disease associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents will be presumed to have been incurred in service even though there is no evidence of that disease during the period of service at issue, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the disease is due to an intercurrent injury or disease. 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a)(6), 3.307(d)(1), 3.309(e). A veteran who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the Vietnam era shall be presumed to have been exposed during such service to an herbicide agent, unless there is affirmative evidence to establish that the veteran was not exposed to any such agent during that service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116(f). The Secretary of Veterans Affairs has determined that there is no positive association between exposure to herbicides and any other condition for which the Secretary has not specifically determined that a presumption of service connection is warranted. See Notice, 59 Fed. Reg. 341-346 (1994). See also 61 Fed. Reg. 41,442, 41,449 and 57,586, 57,589 (1996). As the Veteran’s service personnel records reflect that he served in the Republic of Vietnam, his exposure to herbicide agents is presumed. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has diagnoses of tinea cruris, tinea pedis, and onychomycosis, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that it began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). First, the Board acknowledges that the Veteran is currently diagnosed as suffering from a skin condition. A May 2018 VA examination noted that the Veteran is diagnosed as suffering from tinea pedis and onychomycosis. The current disability criterion is met. There is, however, no evidence that the Veteran sought treatment for or was diagnosed as suffering from a skin condition during his active service. A review of the Veteran’s service treatment records from both of his periods of active service shows no evidence of such treatment or complaints. There is also no competent evidence relating the Veteran’s current skin disabilities to his active service. The examiner from the Veteran’s May 2018 VA examination determined that it is less likely than not that the Veteran’s current disabilities are related to his active service. She noted that the Veteran was not treated for any such condition during his periods of active service, and that numerous post-service treatment records did not indicate any findings of current skin disabilities. The examiner stated that the Veteran’s current skin conditions of tinea pedis and onychomycosis of the feet are fungal infections that are caused by direct contact with the fungus themselves. She stated that, as these disabilities were diagnosed long after the Veteran’s periods of active service, it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s disabilities were related to his service, to include his presumed exposure to herbicide agents. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s statements that he suffered from skin conditions since his service in Vietnam. The Board, however, does not find these contentions to be credible. Notably, following service, the Veteran’s medical records were silent to any treatment for skin conditions. Specifically, in his VA medical records from 2004, 2009, 2013, and 2017, the notes relay that the Veteran’s skin was normal and there were no rashes. Further, the May 2018 VA examiner recorded the Veteran’s contentions at his examination that his rash has “now resolved completely.” The lack of corroborating medical evidence of the Veteran’s claimed skin condition along with the Veteran’s inconsistent report to the May 2018 examiner render his contention not credible. To the extent that the Veteran contends that his claimed condition is related to herbicide agent exposure, the Board notes that his diagnosed disabilities are not among those for which service connection may be granted on a presumptive basis. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e). Further, there is no competent evidence that the Veteran’s skin disabilities may be directly related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. Again, the May 2018 VA examiner described the Veteran’s conditions as fungal in nature and determined that they were, therefore, not related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. The Board has considered statements made by the Veteran that the skin conditions relate to his active service in Vietnam. Lay witnesses are competent to report symptoms because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to them through their senses. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). However, they are not competent to offer opinions as to the etiology of their disabilities due to the medical complexity of the matters involved. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Woehlaert v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 456, 462. Such competent evidence has been provided by the medical personnel who examined the Veteran during the current appeal period and who have rendered pertinent opinions in conjunction with the evaluations. The medical findings (as provided in the VA examinations and medical treatment notes) directly address the relationship between the Veteran’s active service and his disabilities. Here, the Board attaches greater probative weight to their clinical findings than to the Veteran’s lay statements. In sum, the competent evidence does not support a nexus between Veteran’s active service to include the claimed skin conditions. The most probative evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s skin condition is related to service. Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and service connection is denied. Evan Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Mouzakis, Associate Counsel