Citation Nr: 20026067 Decision Date: 04/15/20 Archive Date: 04/15/20 DOCKET NO. 18-36 095 DATE: April 15, 2020 ORDER Service connection for a skin disorder is granted. FINDING OF FACT The competent and probative evidence tends to show that the Veteran’s current skin disorders are related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for skin disorders are met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 5103, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from November 1990 to May 1991. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. In order to establish entitlement to service connection, there must be 1) evidence of a current disability; 2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and 3) causal connection between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran is competent to report symptoms and experiences observable by his senses. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (a). VA is required to give due consideration to all pertinent medical and lay evidence in evaluating a claim for disability benefits. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed Cir. 2009). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, VA shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 57-58 (1990). For Persian Gulf Veterans service connection is warranted pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 1117 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 if a Veteran presents evidence (1) that he or she is a Persian Gulf Veteran; (2) who exhibits objective indications of chronic disability resulting from an illness or combination of illnesses manifested by one or more signs or symptoms such as those listed in paragraph (b) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317; 3) which became manifest either during active military, naval or air service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, or to a degree of 10 percent or more during the presumptive period prescribed by the Secretary; and, (4) that such symptomatology by history, physical examination, and laboratory tests cannot be attributed to any known clinical diagnosis. 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a). Effective October 16, 2012, VA extended the presumptive period in 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(1)(i) through December 31, 2021. See 77 Fed. Reg. 71,382 (2016). For purposes of 38 C.F.R. § 3.317, there are three types of qualifying chronic disabilities: (1) an undiagnosed illness; (2) a medically unexplained chronic multi-symptom illness; and (3) a diagnosed illness that the Secretary determines in regulations prescribed under 38 U.S.C. § 1117(d) warrants a presumption of service-connection. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder. The Veteran asserts service connection for a skin disorder. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a skin disorder that began during service, or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran has current diagnoses of psoriasis and dermatitis to include as noted in his VA treatment records. As such, the first element of service connection is met. While the Veteran’s service treatment records (STRs) do not document skin disorders, he has asserted that he was exposed to chemicals during service, and that he has had skin problems since that time. His medical records show that he has had skin related problems since December 1991. The Board finds the Veteran competent and credible to describe his experiences in service as well as stating that his skin problems began soon after service. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). However, he is not competent to provide an etiology opinion for his skin disorders as the issue is medically complex and requires a thorough understanding of the integumentary system. A lay buddy statement notes the Veteran’s skin cracked on his hands after returning from service. The Veteran has submitted a positive private medical opinion. The physician states that the Veteran’s dermatitis is probably related to chemical exposure during his active service as he did not have the disorder prior to his active duty. A separate medical opinion notes that his hand dermatitis developed after service. A November 2018 examination noted that the Veteran’s dermatitis was diagnosable but medically unexplained chronic multi symptom illness of an unknown etiology and was presumed to be caused by service in Southwest Asia. The Board notes that these opinions are conclusory in their findings. However, the Board notes that all the opinions relate the Veteran’s skin disorders to his time in service. As such, when viewed as a whole, the three positive nexus opinions have probative value. When resolving reasonable doubt in favor of the Veteran, and after review of the competent and probative evidence, the Board finds that service connection for psoriasis and dermatitis is warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. The Veteran has submitted positive private statements, and the VA opinion stated that his skin disorders were medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illnesses of unknown etiology related to his service in Southwest Asia. Additionally, the Board notes that there are no negative nexus opinions. The Board acknowledges that his STRs do not show complaints related to his skin, but soon after service he began to experience skin problems as documented above. As such, service connection for his skin disorders is warranted. Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Garrett Morales, 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.