Citation Nr: 18160770 Decision Date: 12/27/18 Archive Date: 12/27/18 DOCKET NO. 17-01 647 DATE: December 27, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for eczema is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has an acquired psychiatric disorder due to a disease or injury in service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from August 2015 and March 2016 rating decisions. The Veteran served on active duty from February 2000 to February 2003. The Veteran seeks service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder. He initially claimed entitlement to service connection for social anxiety and paranoia, but treatment records suggest additional psychiatric diagnoses including depression. Thus, the Board has characterized the claim to include any acquired psychiatric disorder. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The question for the Board, therefore, 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 a current diagnosis of social phobia and depression, the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s diagnosis of an acquired psychiatric disorder began during service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). The Veteran’s VA treatment record reflects that in August 2004 depression was diagnosed and in September 2013 social phobia was diagnosed. During his VA treatment, the Veteran reported that his depression, anxiety, and social phobia began prior to service. There is no evidence of complaints, treatment, or diagnoses related to psychiatric complaints in service. During his January 2000 enlistment examination, the Veteran reported he did not have depression or excessive worry, or nervous trouble of any sort, and on examination he was clinically evaluated as psychiatrically normal. The Veteran also specifically described himself as having fair mental health status in an August 2001 medical survey. In order to invoke the presumption of soundness, the Veteran must show that he suffered from a disease or injury while in service. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231 (2012). That is not shown here. Further, the Veteran himself has not asserted how his psychiatric disabilities were related to or aggravated by his service. Accordingly, a nexus to the Veteran’s active duty service cannot be established and service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND Entitlement to a rating in excess of 10 percent for eczema is remanded. VA treatment records reflect that symptoms of the Veteran’s service-connected eczema have increased in severity since he was last examined by VA in February 2016. The February 2016 VA examiner noted the Veteran’s eczema was on his bilateral hands, but a January 2017 VA treatment note indicated that his eczema was on his bilateral hands, face and abdomen. Accordingly, the Veteran should be provided an opportunity to report for a VA examination to ascertain the current severity, extent and manifestations of his eczema. Additionally, updated treatment records should be obtained. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. See also Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611 (1992). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the names and addresses of all medical care providers who treated the Veteran for any skin complaints since January 2016. After securing the necessary release, take all appropriate action to obtain these records, including any updated VA treatment records since January 2017. 2. After the completion of the above, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service-connected eczema. The examiner should provide a full description of the eczema, identify specific areas affected and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of any flare-ups, and the degree of functional loss during flare-ups. To the extent possible, the examiner should identify any symptoms and functional impairments due to his eczema alone and discuss the effect of the Veteran’s eczema on any occupational functioning and activities of daily living. M.E. Larkin Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Eric Struening, Associate Counsel