Citation Nr: 20003100 Decision Date: 01/14/20 Archive Date: 01/14/20 DOCKET NO. 17-45 406 DATE: January 14, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, including psoriasis is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a back disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral knee disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a psychiatric disability is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for a respiratory disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active naval service from January 1961 to November 1964. This appeal comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a June 2015 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). Remand is required for additional evidentiary development, to include obtaining additional treatment records and VA examination reports. First, the record only contains VA treatment reports dated from April 2015 to March 2017. However, the Veteran has testified that he has received treatment for his various claimed disabilities at the VA Medical Center since the 1990s. Evidence indicates that there may be outstanding relevant VA treatment records. Any VA treatment records are within VA’s constructive possession, and are considered potentially relevant to the issues on appeal. A remand is required to allow VA to obtain them. With regard to the skin disability claim, a May 2015 VA examiner diagnosed eczema and opined that eczema was not related to active duty as there is no documentation of a skin condition in the service treatment records or post-service treatment records. However, subsequent treatment records show a diagnosis of psoriasis. Additionally, the Veteran testified in October 2019 that he began to have flaky skin in service, and that his skin condition progressively worsened over the years. A remand is required to obtain a new examination that addresses the Veteran’s current diagnosis of psoriasis and the Veteran’s lay statements. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007) Regarding the claimed psychiatric disability, the Veteran asserts that he lived in fear and under constant stress while serving during the Cuban Missile Crisis in Guantanamo Bay. He specified that his ship was responsible for detecting the surfacing of the first Russian submarine, and that he was personally responsible for his captain’s safety in the middle of the nuclear crisis. Service personnel records indicate that the Veteran served aboard the U.S.S. Canberra from February 1962 until January 1963, at which point he was transferred to the U.S.S. Grand Canyon until his discharge. Although the AOJ attempted to verify the Veteran’s claimed stressor by obtaining deck logs for the U.S.S. Canberra, the AOJ did not obtain any deck logs for the U.S.S. Grand Canyon. Remand is thus required to obtain those additional records. Additionally, VA and private treatment records note diagnoses of post-traumatic stress disorder, other trauma-related stress disorder, and anxiety disorder. A VA psychiatric examination is warranted to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present psychiatric disability. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Regarding his claimed respiratory disability, the Veteran testified that he was exposed to asbestos, fumes, and paint while he was aboard the U.S.S. Grand Canyon. He specified that he performed a lot of scraping, painting, and chipping on the ship. He testified that he currently saw a respiratory therapist at the VA Medical Center. Considering the Veteran’s reports, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present respiratory disability. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). As to his claimed back and bilateral knee disabilities, the Veteran testified that his duties on the ship resulted in wear and tear on his knees and back. He had to carry heavy loads and scale stairs, and frequently banged his knees on the steel stairs. VA treatment records suggest that the Veteran has a diagnosis of osteoarthritis. Based on the foregoing, the Board finds that that the Veteran should be afforded a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any currently present back and knee disabilities. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Identify and obtain any pertinent, outstanding VA and private treatment records and associate them with the claims file. This should include VA treatment records from the Providence VA Medical Center (VAMC) and C.W. Bill Young VAMC. 2. Obtain the complete deck logs for the U.S.S. Grand Canyon from January 1964 to November 1964. 3. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA psychiatric examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed psychiatric disability. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present psychiatric disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 4. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA orthopedic examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed back disability. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide opinions as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present back disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 5. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA skin disorders examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed knee disabilities. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present knee disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 6. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA skin disorders examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed skin disability, to include psoriasis. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present skin disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 7. Then, schedule the Veteran for a VA respiratory examination to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed respiratory disorder. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the examiner. Any indicated studies should be performed. Based on the examination results and the review of the record, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or better probability) that any currently present skin disability is etiologically related to the Veteran’s active service. The rationale for all opinions expressed must be provided. 8. Then, readjudicate the remaining claims on appeal. If any decision remains adverse to the Veteran, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the appropriate time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Roya Bahrami 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.