Citation Nr: 20021669 Decision Date: 03/26/20 Archive Date: 03/26/20 DOCKET NO. 18-03 525 DATE: March 26, 2020 ORDER The application to reopen the claim for service connection for a skin rash, claimed as fungus infection, jungle rot and contact dermatitis, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for a skin rash, claimed as fungus infection, jungle rot and contact dermatitis, is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for sinusitis is remanded. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The evidence received since the February 2006 rating decision regarding the claim for service connection for a skin rash is not cumulative or redundant and raises a reasonable possibility of substantiating the Veteran’s claim. 2. It is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s skin condition onset during his active duty service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. New and material evidence having been submitted, the service connection claim for a skin rash is reopened. 38 U.S.C. § 5108 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2019). 2. The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a skin rash have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1110, 1111, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.304 (2018). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty from September 1967 to September 1970. He received the Good Conduct Medal; Army Commendation Medal; National Defense Service Medal; Vietnam Service Medal with four bronze service stars; Republic of Vietnam Gallantry Cross with palm unit citation badge; Expert Marksmanship Badge; Sharpshooter Badge; and, Vietnam Campaign Medal. In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. Service Connection for a Skin Rash The Veteran’s claim for service connection for a skin rash, including fungus infection and jungle rot, was denied in a February 2006 rating decision. The Veteran did not appeal this decision or submit new evidence within one year of the denial. The February 2006 decision thereby became final. Since that final decision, the Board finds that the Veteran has submitted new and material evidence. Specifically, the Veteran submitted a positive nexus statement from a private clinician. See July 2016 Private Treatment Records, p. 1. The Board finds that the newly submitted evidence reasonably raises the possibility that the Veteran’s skin condition is related to his active duty service, and the Board will reopen the claim. See Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 118 (2010); see also Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Turning to the question of service connection, direct service connection generally requires credible and competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The evidence shows that the Veteran has a current disability. Specifically, the Veteran has a current diagnosis of contact dermatitis. See December 2019 VA Examination, pp. 1-2, 4. Accordingly, the Board finds that the first element of service connection is established. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366. The evidence also shows that the Veteran had an in-service injury. During his active duty, the Veteran was treated for contact dermatitis on the back of his hands. See April 1971 STRs, p. 31. The Veteran also reports experiencing recurrent itching and redness on his hands and feet during his service and his reports are both competent and credible. See December 2019 VA Examination, p. 2; see Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Board finds that the Veteran has presented sufficient evidence to demonstrate the occurrence of an in-service injury, and the second element of service connection is established. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366. Regarding the final Holton element, the evidence is at least in equipoise. In July 2016, the Veteran submitted an opinion from his private clinician that indicated that the Veteran’s skin condition was caused by wet conditions during his active duty service. See July 2016 Private Treatment Records, p. 1. A second private clinician indicated that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s current contact dermatitis onset during his active duty service. See December 2019 Private Treatment Records, p. 3. The Board acknowledges that neither the July 2016 nor December 2019 opinions contain a thorough rationale. However, these opinions are adequate when considered in conjunction with the Veteran’s credible reports of continuous symptoms. Moreover, there is no opinion to the contrary. The Board finds that the Veteran has presented sufficient evidence to establish the third element of service connection. See Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366. As all three elements of service connection have been established, service connection for a skin rash, including fungus infection, jungle rot and contact dermatitis, is warranted. REASONS FOR REMAND Service Connection for Sinusitis The Veteran underwent a VA examination in January 2015, but the examiner did not find that the Veteran’s symptoms warranted a diagnosis of anything other than allergic rhinitis (for which the Veteran is currently service connected). See January 2015 VA Examination, pp. 5, 10. However, the examiner’s opinion does not provide any indication as to whether the Veteran’s recurrent shortness of breath and pressure in his head are symptoms of allergic rhinitis or another respiratory illness, including sinusitis. Accordingly, the Board finds that a new opinion is necessary. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination to ascertain the nature and etiology of his sinus and respiratory complaints. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion, and the examination report should include a discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. The examiner should offer comments, an opinion and a supporting rationale that address the following: (a) Identify all diagnoses, other than allergic rhinitis, that pertain to the Veteran’s sinus and respiratory complaints. (b) Is it at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any diagnoses identified above were incurred in, aggravated by, or are otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service? In providing this opinion, the examiner should consider the Veteran’s reports of difficulty breathing when he returned from Vietnam and Thailand and his presumed exposure to herbicides in the Vietnam. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report his history and symptoms and such reports must be considered. If the examiner rejects the Veteran’s reports, the examiner must provide a reason for doing so. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board W.V. Walker, 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.