Citation Nr: 18152906 Decision Date: 11/26/18 Archive Date: 11/26/18 DOCKET NO. 11-18 745 DATE: November 26, 2018 REMANDED ISSUE Service connection for a skin disability is remanded. The Veteran served on active duty in the Army National Guard from February 1994 to January 1995. He also served on active duty in the United States Army from February 1995 to February 1998. Additionally, the Board observes that the Veteran appears to have additional service in the Army National Guard, after his separation from the United States Army in February 1998, that has not been verified. The Veteran contends he has a skin disability that was incurred in service. While the October 2017 VA examination indicated the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a skin disability, the Veteran asserts the examination was inadequate. See November 2018 Appellate Brief. The Board observes that the October 2017 VA examination appeared to evaluate only whether the Veteran has a current skin disability of the hands. Whereas, the evidence of record indicates the Veteran has sought treatment on several occasions during and after service for skin rash of the arms and legs, and scaling or peeling of the feet, as well as itching all over. See June 1995, August 1995, and September 1997 service treatment records; see also July 2006 and April 2007 private treatment records. Additionally, private treatment records from April 2007 indicate the Veteran was diagnosed with unspecified pruritic disorder. The Veteran has been prescribed antihistamines, as well as Dermacerin cream and triamcinolone acetonide for skin irritations. See June and August 1995 service treatment records, April 2007 private treatment records, and February and June 2009 VA treatment records. Lastly, the Board observes the evidence of record indicates that the Veteran may have served in the Alabama Army National Guard after his separation from the United States Army in February 1998. A June 2001 memorandum from the Alabama Army National Guard suggests that there may be additional records to help substantiate the Veteran’s claim for entitlement to service connection for a skin disability that have not been obtained or associated with the file. To ensure due process of law and that VA has met is duty to assist, the Board finds that remand is necessary to obtain relevant service personnel and treatment records. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain all documents pertaining to the Veteran’s service in the Alabama Army National Guard. Verify all periods of active duty, active duty for training (ACDUTRA), and inactive duty training (INACTDUTRA). If necessary, a request should be made to the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS). Document all requests for information as well as responses in the claims file. Additionally, obtain any service treatment records pertaining to the Veteran’s service in the Alabama Army National Guard after February 1998 until his date of separation. Ask the Veteran to provide any pertinent private treatment records, such as those requested by the Alabama Army National Guard in the June 2001 correspondence to the Veteran. 2. After the above development, schedule the Veteran for an examination to identify all diagnoses related to the Veteran’s claim for a skin disability of the arms, legs, hands, and/or feet. The examiner should opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that any skin disability of the arms, legs, hands, and/or feet originated during, or is otherwise related to, his active service, including any ACTDUTRA or INACTDUTRA in the Alabama Army National Guard. If a current skin disability is not shown upon examination, an opinion still must be provided regarding any skin disability identified during the appeal period that may have resolved. 3. Readjudicate the issue on appeal. If the benefit sought remains denied, send the Veteran and his representative a Supplemental Statement of the Case and provide an opportunity to respond. If necessary, return the case to the Board for further appellate review. V. Chiappetta Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD B. Mask, Associate Counsel