Citation Nr: 20052018 Decision Date: 08/05/20 Archive Date: 08/05/20 DOCKET NO. 16-03 017 DATE: August 5, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to revision of a September 27, 1996, rating decision that failed to adjudicate a claim of service connection for alopecia, on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.105, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Air Force from December 1984 to April 1988. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2013 and January 2016 rating decisions by a Regional Office (RO) of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In December 2018, the Board, in pertinent part, denied the Veteran’s claims for an effective date earlier than February 29, 2012 for pseudofolliculitis barbae, to include on the basis of CUE in a February 28, 2008, rating decision that denied service connection for the disability; the motion for revision of a February 28, 2008, rating decision that denied separate compensable evaluations for scarring alopecia and hidradenitis suppurativa; and an effective date earlier than November 30, 2006 for follicular occlusion triad syndrome, including pilonidal cyst residuals, dissecting cellulitis, and perifolliculitis, to include on the basis of CUE in a September 27, 1996, rating decision that failed to adjudicate those issues. The Veteran appealed the Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). A February 2020 memorandum decision of the Court affirmed the December 2018 Board decision with respect to the aforementioned issues. The Court, however, noted the Veteran’s October 2013 motion for revision of a September 27, 1996 rating decision that failed to adjudicate a claim of service connection for alopecia. The Court determined that neither the RO or the Board addressed this CUE motion, and remanded the claim to address this theory of CUE. As such, the issue is before the Board. The issue of entitlement to revision of a September 27, 1996 rating decision on the basis of CUE must be remanded for adjudication by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in the first instance. See Jarrell v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326, 333 (2006) (en banc); Huston v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 395, 402-03 (2004). The Board accepts the jurisdiction conferred by the Court for this limited purpose. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Issue a rating decision to adjudicate the claim of CUE in a September 1996 rating decision that failed to adjudicate a claim for service connection for alopecia, in the context of his claim of service connection for pityriasis rosea. If adverse, the Veteran must be informed of his appellate rights with respect to the decision. WILLIAM H. DONNELLY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G.A. Ong, 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.