Citation Nr: 20043780 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 16-56 159 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served in active duty in the Navy from 1966 to 1969. This case comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which denied entitlement to service connection for a skin condition. The Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement in October 2015, and a Statement of the Case was issued in September 2016. In November 2016, the Veteran perfected his appeal to the Board. The Veteran requested a videoconference hearing with a Veterans Law Judge, which was scheduled for June 14, 2019. However, the Veteran failed to appear without good cause shown. Therefore, the Board considers the hearing request withdrawn, and will proceed to adjudicate the case based on the evidence of record. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d). 1. Entitlement to Service Connection for Skin Disability is Remanded VA must provide an examination or opinion with regard to claims for disability compensation when there is competent evidence of a disability that may be associated with an in-service injury, disease, or event but there is insufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The Veteran’s reports of continuous symptoms can satisfy the requirement for evidence that the claimed disability may be associated with service and the threshold for finding that the disability may be associated with service is low. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. VA treatment records reflect multiple skin diagnoses, including pruritis and xerosis. Thus, the first element of the McLendon criteria has been met. The Veteran’s service records indicate that he served in the Republic of Vietnam. Thus, Agent Orange exposure is presumed. See 38 U.S.C. § 1116 (f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). Moreover, the Veteran has made competent, credible statements indicating he experienced skin symptoms in service. The second element of the McLendon criteria has thus been met. Finally, the Veteran has indicated in his written statements and during VA treatment that his skin symptoms have continued since service. This satisfies the third element of the McLendon criteria. As there is evidence of current skin disability that may be associated with service, and the Veteran has not been provided a medical examination or opinion, a remand for such an examination and opinion is warranted. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: Request an opinion from an appropriate clinician as to the etiology of the Veteran’s skin disability. If an examination is deemed necessary, one should be conducted. The claims file must be sent to the clinician for review. The clinician should first identify all current skin disorders, i.e., since approximately July 2015 when the Veteran filed his claim. Then, as to any such skin disorder, the clinician should indicate whether it is as least as likely as not (50 percent probability or more) that such disorder either (1) began during active service; or (2) is related to an in-service injury or disease, including the Veteran’s presumed exposure to herbicide agents (including Agent Orange) in A complete rationale should accompany any opinion provided. The fact that a specific skin disorder is not on the list of diseases presumed to be associated with exposure to Agent Orange should not be the basis for a negative opinion, as the Veteran may establish entitlement on a direct basis. The clinician is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms and treatment, and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinion. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J.K. Donaldson, 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.