Citation Nr: 20004810 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 01/21/20 DOCKET NO. 18-10 591 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, including skin cancer, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s skin cancer, or any other skin disability, is causally related to his active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a skin disability, including skin cancer, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1950 to September 1953. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2016 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In December 2018, the Board remanded the matter for additional development. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, including skin cancer Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (2016). The evidence must show (1) the existence of a current disability, (2) an 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). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any material issue, reasonable doubt will be resolved in favor of the Veteran. 38 U.S.C.§ 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1991). Here, the record establishes the Veteran’s service records are unavailable as they were destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center. In such cases, there is a heightened obligation to assist the Veteran in the development of the case, to explain findings and conclusions, and to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt rule. See Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 369-70 (2005); see also Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217 (2005) (citing O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991)). However, the legal standard for proving a claim for service connection is not lowered. Rather, it increases the Board’s obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all of the evidence that may be favorable to the claimant. See Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). The Veteran claims entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, including skin cancer. Medical evidence of record confirms he has been diagnosed with skin cancer. The Veteran asserted in his VA form 9, that his skin cancer was caused by exposure to extended hours of sunlight, without skin protection, during his service at Elmendorf Air Force Base in Alaska. As a lay person, the Veteran does not have the medical training needed to provide a competent opinion as to the etiology of a skin condition. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In December 2018, the Board remanded the claim to obtain an examination and medical opinion addressing whether any current skin disability was causally related to the Veteran’s active service. In August 2019, a VA contractor noted the Veteran declined to be scheduled for this examination. Thereafter, VA contacted the Veteran by letter, informed him of the information from the contractor, and invited him to request rescheduling of the examination. The record does not contain any communication from the Veteran providing a reason for declining to be scheduled for the examination or requesting rescheduling of the examination. Accordingly, no examination was provided and there is no competent medical opinion of record addressing the etiology of the Veteran’s skin disability. In pursuing a claim, a claimant has some responsibility to cooperate in the development of all facts pertinent to his claim, and the duty to assist is not a one-way street. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). As there is no evidence showing good cause for not scheduling an appointment, the Board must decide the appeal based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. There is no competent evidence of a nexus between any current skin disability, including skin cancer, and the Veteran’s active service. Therefore, the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine does not apply, and service connection for a skin disability, including skin cancer, is not warranted. See Gilbert, supra; see also Shedden, supra. . M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Jeanne Celtnieks 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.