Citation Nr: 19192514 Decision Date: 12/10/19 Archive Date: 12/10/19 DOCKET NO. 19-24 553 DATE: December 10, 2019 ORDER The application to reopen, based on new and material evidence, a previously denied claim of service connection for a skin disability is granted. REMANDED Service connection for a skin disability is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a July 2011 rating action, the RO denied the Veteran’s application to reopen a claim of service connection for skin disability; although the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement and was issued a Statement of the Case (SOC), he failed to timely file a Substantive Appeal and the decision became final. 2. The evidence received since December 2012 SOC is not duplicative or cumulative of evidence previously of record and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s skin disability claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The July 2011 rating decision that denied service connection for skin disability is final. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104(a), 3.160(d), 20.302, 20.1103. 2. Evidence received since the August 2012 SOC is new and material; the claim of entitlement to service connection for skin disability is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1968 to June 1970, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). New and Material Evidence The Veteran previously submitted a claim of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability. This claim was denied in March 2006 and July 2011 rating decisions. Since these rating decisions, additional medical records and lay statements have been associated with the file purporting to show additional skin disabilities that could be related to the Veteran’s Agent Orange exposure. Additionally, the Veteran now contends that exposure to sun and weather conditions in Vietnam also resulted in his current skin disabilities. This evidence is new, not duplicative of evidence previously of record, and material in that it addresses the missing nexus element, raises new theories of entitlement to service connection, and provides additional information regarding medical diagnoses. Thus, the Board finds new and material evidence has been received sufficient to reopen his previously denied claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran contends that his current skin disability is related to Agent Orange Exposure. Alternatively, he asserts that his skin disability is the result of sun exposure and weather conditions. Regardless, he reports having recurrent skin problems since service. As a result, remand is warranted for a VA examination to address the etiology and onset of his current skin disability. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. 2. Notify the Veteran that he may submit lay statements from himself and from other individuals who have first-hand knowledge of the Veteran’s in-service and post-service skin problems. The Veteran should be provided an appropriate amount of time to submit this lay evidence. 3. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the onset and etiology of his skin disability. For any skin disorder identified, the VA examiner should opine whether the disorder had its onset in service, is related to service, is related to Agent Orange exposure, and is related to sun and weather conditions in Vietnam. In responding to these questions, the examiner must acknowledge and discuss the Veteran’s competent report of having recurrent skin problems since service. The examiner must also acknowledge and discuss the Veteran’s report of being exposed to sun while serving in Vietnam. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board K.Ijitimehin, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.