Citation Nr: 20042847 Decision Date: 06/24/20 Archive Date: 06/24/20 DOCKET NO. 11-04 460 DATE: June 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure (Agent Orange) is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension (HTN), to include as due to herbicide agent exposure (Agent Orange) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States from June 1970 to December 1971 with service in Vietnam. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include as due to herbicide agent exposure (Agent Orange) is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension (HTN), to include as due to herbicide agent exposure (Agent Orange) is remanded. When this appeal was last before the Board in December 2016, it was remanded to afford the Veteran VA examinations for his claimed skin condition and his hypertension. In January 2017 a letter was sent to the Veteran asking him to contact the Compensation and Pension Department to schedule his examinations. In March 2017, the Veteran was reported as an incarcerated felon. In April 2018, VA received a letter stating that the Veteran had a new address. In December 2019, a Subsequent Development Letter was sent to the Veteran stating that a “private facility will soon advise you of the date, time and place of this examination.” No such letter is of record. Since that date, there is no evidence in the file that shows that the Veteran has been contacted or scheduled for the examinations per the Board’s previous remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Generally, when a Veteran fails to appear at a VA examination without good cause, a service connection claim will be adjudicated based on the evidence of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.655. Nevertheless, given the evidence of record, the Board is unable to ascertain whether the Veteran was ever notified of any scheduled examinations or could have replied to a request for scheduling due to his incarceration. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is necessary to afford the Veteran VA examinations in the assistance of his claims for service connection for a skin condition and hypertension. At the same time, the Board notes that the duty to assist Veterans in developing their claims is not a one-way street. It is the Veteran’s responsibility to present and support his claim. He is obligated to cooperate when he is asked for information which is essential in obtaining relevant evidence. 38 U.S.C. § 5103; Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). While VA does have a duty to assist him in the development of his claim, that duty is not limitless, and the Veteran must be prepared to cooperate with VA’s efforts to obtain all relevant evidence. Olsen v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992). The Board observes that the service treatment records (STR) do not document any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment of a skin condition; however, a May 1973 post-service treatment record documented a previous diagnosis of erythema multiforme. Subsequent treatment records show ongoing complaints of rashes and dermatitis. The Board notes that the Veteran is competent to report his observable skin symptoms. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on that of which he or she has personal knowledge). The Board notes that the Veteran’s STR also do not document any complaints, diagnosis, or treatment for hypertension. However, since the Veteran filed his claim for service connection for hypertension, there has been a significant legal development. In the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) Veterans and Agent Orange: Update 11 (2018), the (NAS) found sufficient evidence of an association for hypertension and exposure to Agent Orange and other herbicide agents used during the Vietnam War. As a result, hypertension was upgraded from its previous classification in the category of “limited or suggestive” evidence of an association with exposure to herbicide agents to the category of “sufficient” evidence of an association with exposure to herbicide agents. According to NAS, “[t]he sufficient category indicates that there is enough epidemiologic evidence to conclude that there is a positive association” between hypertension and herbicide agent exposure. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any skin condition. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must address the documented diagnosis of erythema multiforme in a May 1973 VA treatment record and the Veteran’s lay evidence of ongoing skin rashes and chronic dermatitis since he separated from the service. The examiner must also opine whether any current skin condition it is at least as likely as not related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any hypertension. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner must opine whether it at least as likely as not that the Veteran’s hypertension (1) began during active service, (2) manifested within one year after discharge from service, or (3) was noted during service with continuity of the same symptomatology since service. The examiner must opine whether any hypertension is at least as likely as not related to his in-service herbicide agent exposure. The examiner must address the NAS’s conclusion that, “[t]he sufficient category indicates that there is enough epidemiologic evidence to conclude that there is a positive association” between hypertension and herbicide agent exposure. T. REYNOLDS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Nelson 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.