Citation Nr: 21000926 Decision Date: 01/06/21 Archive Date: 01/06/21 DOCKET NO. 12-04 097 DATE: January 6, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left forehead scar is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s left forehead scar was incurred in or otherwise related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a left forehead scar have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1111, 1131, 1137, 1153, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1991 to November 1994. This matter was previously before the Board in June 2020, at which time it was remanded to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) for further development. The RO most recently readjudicated the appeal in an October 2020 supplemental statement of the case. The Board finds that VA has substantially complied with the June 2020 Board remand. For clarity, the Board notes at the outset that the Veteran is service-connected for a skin disorder. A March 2019 rating decision granted the Veteran service-connection for a linear scar above the left eyebrow effective October 22, 2010. That issue is not on appeal before the Board. As will be noted in further detail below, the Veteran has two separate and distinct scars on his face: a linear scar above the left eyebrow and a circular scar on the left portion of his forehead. See October 2020 VA Scar/Disfigurement examination). To clarify the two separate issues, the Board has recharacterized the claim as entitlement to service connection for a left forehead scar, as shown on the cover page of this decision. The Veteran maintains that his current scar on the left portion of the forehead is related to his active duty service. More specifically, the Veteran claims that he had contact with poison ivy during service and that the left forehead scar is a result of the in-service exposure to poison ivy. In order to establish service connection for a claimed disorder, the following must be shown: (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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran has submitted lay statements asserting that he was ordered to come in contact with poison ivy during service and that he immediately had blisters and had treatment for the condition, to include calamine lotion but that scarring occurred and never went away. See July 2016 and August 2017 Statement in Claim. The Veteran’s service treatment records show that on entrance, a scar was noted above his left eye. In July 1991, there is also a notation of removal of a stich from above the left eyebrow. Service treatment records are otherwise silent for any complaints, diagnoses or treatment related to poison ivy or the forehead generally. Moreover, in the Veteran’s separation report of medical history, the Veteran did not report any issues involving poison ivy. In June 2020, the Board remanded this issue for an additional examination. The Board found that a prior December 2017 VA examination relied solely on the absence of any diagnosis or treatment during service in finding that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s current left forehead scar was etiologically related to service. The Veteran was afforded another examination in October 2020. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a well healed linear scar above the left eyebrow and with a well healed circular scar on the left forehead. The circular left forehead scar was not painful to the touch and was found to measure approximately half a centimeter long and half a centimeter wide. The examiner noted the lack of in-service complaints or treatment for the alleged poison ivy incident. Moreover, the examiner found, that even if the Veteran’s statements regarding the condition were true, the scar in question is not consistent with poison ivy lesions and poison ivy generally is not known to cause permanent scarring. Accordingly, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the claimed condition was incurred in or caused by the claim in-service injury or event. The Board finds the October 2020 VA examiner’s opinion to be highly probative. The examiner considered the Veteran’s lay statements and had an opportunity to review the record. Significantly, there is no probative competent medical opinion of record to the contrary. It is important for the Veteran to understand that the most competent and thorough medical findings provide probative evidence against these claims that the Board cannot, unfortunately, ignore, outweighing the Veteran’s belief that his conditions were the result of service, providing a clear basis for the decision. The Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. Because the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57(1990). John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board V. Woehlke 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.