Citation Nr: 21002723
Decision Date: 01/14/21	Archive Date: 01/14/21

DOCKET NO. 17-01 238
DATE: January 14, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to a clothing allowance is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from March 1969 to October 1970.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2001 administrative decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC).  

In August 2007, August 2012, and May 2015, the Board remanded the case for further development and it now returns for appellate review.  In April 2007 and January 2020, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge.

The Board notes that the Veteran’s claim was remanded in May 2015 in order to determine whether clothing allowance was warranted based on medications used for the treatment of disseminated eczema and tinea pedis.  However, as discussed below, this matter has not yet been addressed by the VAMC and regrettably, another remand is necessary.

Entitlement to a clothing allowance.

In May 2015, in light of the Board’s grant of service connection for disseminated eczema, the issue of entitlement to clothing allowance was remanded for additional development.  In this regard, the Board indicated that the entitlement to clothing allowance based exclusively on the service-connected tinea pedis.  However, the Veteran was shown to have used numerous topical medications for eczema, including Carmol, Lac-Hydrin, urea cream, Pramosone lotion and Desonide lotion. However, there was no indication of record as to whether any of these topical medications have caused irreparable damage to the Veteran’s outer garments.  Since the VAMC did not consider whether clothing allowance was warranted based on medications used for the treatment of disseminated eczema and tinea pedis, the case was remanded in order to consider such evidence.   

In an October 2015 deferred rating action, the RO correctly noted that the clothing allowance matter should be transferred to the VAMC for consideration and it appears that the transference of the matter was undertaken.  However, a review of the claims file suggests that this matter has not yet been addressed by the VAMC.  As such, another remand is necessary.  

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

Readjudicate the clothing allowance claim, and if benefits remain denied, issue a supplemental statement of the case to the Veteran and his representative.  

(Continued on the next page)

 

Thereafter, an opportunity to respond must be provided. 

 

C. CRAWFORD

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Brennae L. Brooks, 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.