Citation Nr: 18153754 Decision Date: 11/29/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 16-15 685 DATE: November 29, 2018 ORDER An annual clothing allowance for the 2015 calendar year for hydrophilic cream is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran’s hydrophilic cream, used to treat a service-connected disability, does not cause irreparable damage to his outer garments. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for a clothing allowance for the 2015 calendar year for hydrophilic cream have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.810. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from August 1969 to September 1971. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2016 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC). The law provides for payment of an annual clothing allowance for each veteran who, because of a service-connected disability, wears or uses a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance (including a wheelchair) which VA determines tends to wear out or tear the clothing of the veteran, or uses medication which a physician has prescribed for a skin condition which is due to a service-connected disability and VA determines causes irreparable damage to the veteran’s outer garments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162. The implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.810, provides, in pertinent part, that an annual clothing allowance may be granted when the Under Secretary for Health or a designee certifies that a veteran, because of a service-connected disability or disabilities, wears or uses one qualifying prosthetic or orthopedic appliance (including, but not limited to, a wheelchair) which tends to wear or tear clothing, or that a veteran uses medication prescribed by a physician for one skin condition, which is due to a service-connected disability, that causes irreparable damage to the veteran’s outer garments. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(1)(ii). The Veteran is prescribed hydrophilic cream for his service-connected dermatitis. As reflected in his March 2015 claim, he asserts using such hydrophilic cream for eczema of the arm and hand. As reflected in his August 2015 notice of disagreement and March 2016 substantive appeal, he generally asserts that his hydrophilic cream stains his clothes, that he has been unsuccessful in trying to remove the stains through washing, and that he is “constantly having to [buy] new clothing [because] of the stains.” He also asserts that he has received a clothing allowance in the past. As reflected in its February 2016 statement of the case, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) denied the Veteran’s claim on the basis that hydrophilic cream has been determined not to cause permanent damage to clothing according to the Pharmacy and Prosthetic workgroup. A guide and updated listing created by the Prosthetic and Pharmacy workgroup identifies skin medications, ointments, or lotions that may cause irreparable staining, discoloration, bleeding, and damage not removable by laundering or dry cleaning. See VHA Handbook, 1173.15, “Clothing Allowance,” May 14, 2015. Regarding the Veteran’s hydrophilic cream, such cream is categorized as a medication that that does not stain or damage clothing. VA’s LIST OF MEDICATIONS THAT MAY STAIN OR DAMAGE CLOTHING, revised 11/17/2016. The Veteran has not any provided supporting evidence that, or identified any specific way in which, his skin cream causes irreparable damage to his outer garments other than generally asserting that it stains his clothing. He has provided no such supporting evidence that hydrophilic cream actually causes permanent stains in his clothing, such as photographs or other such evidence showing how his clothes are stained; or evidence such as purchase receipts reflecting that the Veteran is, as asserted, “constantly having to [buy] new clothing [because] of the stains.” In this regard, the Veteran was notified of the decision to deny his clothing allowance claim in June 2015, and did not file a substantive appeal to the Board until March 2016, which would provide sufficient time to submit any such evidence. The Veteran has not, moreover, provided any general evidence refuting VA’s determination that his hydrophilic cream is not the type that would stain or damage clothing, such as product information suggesting that such cream is in fact a type that would tend to cause permanent staining or other irreparable damage to clothing. Therefore, the evidence as a whole is against a finding that the Veteran’s hydrophilic cream for use on his service-connected dermatitis, caused irreparable damage to his outer garments. Accordingly, a clothing allowance is not warranted for the 2015 calendar year based on the Veteran’s use of such cream for his service-connected skin disability. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App.49, 53-56 (1990). JONATHAN B. KRAMER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Andrew Mack, Counsel