Citation Nr: 18158581 Decision Date: 12/18/18 Archive Date: 12/17/18 DOCKET NO. 16-47 254 DATE: December 18, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to a clothing allowance for the 2015 calendar year for hydroquinone cream is denied. FINDING OF FACT Hydroquinone cream is not prescribed for the Veteran’s service-connected skin disabilities, such that use consistent with those disabilities does not cause damage to the Veteran’s clothing. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a clothing allowance for the 2015 calendar year for hydroquinone cream are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810.   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from February 1987 to December 2010. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2015 letter of determination by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center. 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 following criteria are met: (i) A VA examination or a hospital or examination report from a facility specified in § 3.326(b) establishes that the veteran, because of a service-connected disability or disabilities due to loss or loss of use of a hand or foot compensable at a rate specified in § 3.350(a), (b), (c), (d), or (f), wears or uses one qualifying prosthetic or orthopedic appliance (including, but not limited to, a wheelchair) which tends to wear or tear clothing; or (ii)(B) The Under Secretary for Health or a designee certifies that a veteran, because of a service-connected disability or disabilities, uses medication prescribed by a physician for one skin condition that causes irreparable damage to the veteran’s outergarments. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(1). The Board initially reflects that the Veteran has been service connected for dyshidrotic eczema and facial seborrheic dermatitis with eyelid dyschromia and herpes simplex virus; her VA treatment records also demonstrate that she is prescribed hydroquinone cream to treat her facial seborrheic dermatitis disability. The VA certifying official in this case has not stated that hydroquinone cream does not cause irreparable damage in this case, but rather has denied this claim because a March 2012 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran’s hydroquinone cream was used for her eyelids, and therefore as medication applied to the eyelids does not damage her outergarments, the claim was denied. On appeal, in her notice of disagreement and her substantive appeal, the Veteran has indicated that she uses the hydroquinone cream on all parts of her body, not just on her eyelids, and that the bleaching cream damaged her clothing. She additionally indicated that she was told to use the hydroquinone cream on her contact dermatitis from wearing a Holter monitor, and that her contact dermatitis is included in her dyshidrotic eczema disability. In a February 2016 VA treatment record, the Veteran was told to use the hydroquinone cream for contact dermatitis resulting from the wearing a Holter monitor. However, the Board reflects that the Veteran is not, prior to that time, shown to have been prescribed hydroquinone cream for her dyshidrotic eczema. Moreover, the Veteran is not competent to state that her contact dermatitis is the same as or included in her dyshidrotic eczema disability, and she has not otherwise submitted any competent evidence to that effect. Thus, the Veteran’s usage on other parts of her body and usage for her contact dermatitis is not for a service-connected skin disability. In other words, the Board finds that the Veteran is not shown to be prescribed the hydroquinone cream for her dyshidrotic eczema disability, but rather for her facial seborrheic dermatitis disability. Although treatment records show that she was told my medical professionals to use the cream for the dermatitis resulting from the Holter monitor, there is no indication in the record that she was told to use the cream for her eczema. Usage for that service-connected skin disability does not result in contact with her clothing and therefore such does not result in irreparable damage to the Veteran’s clothing. Moreover, even if the Board were to find that the Veteran used her hydroquinone cream on other parts of her body as she has asserted, such usage is not the usage for which it is prescribed and therefore the Board cannot award a clothing allowance on that basis in this case. Accordingly, the Board finds that the VA certifying official’s statements that proper usage of the hydroquinone cream for her facial seborrheic dermatitis would not cause irreparable damage to her outergarments to be dispositive in this case. Therefore, the Veteran’s claim for a clothing allowance for the 2015 calendar year for hydroquinone cream must be denied in this case based on the evidence of record at this time. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.810. JAMES G. REINHART Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Peters, Counsel