Citation Nr: 21002774 Decision Date: 01/14/21 Archive Date: 01/14/21 DOCKET NO. 14-20 177 DATE: January 14, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability has been withdrawn. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to include posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for chloracne is remanded. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 60 percent for guttate psoriasis is remanded. Entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) is remanded. REFERRED The issue of entitlement to an increased rating for the right knee disability was raised during the November 2020 hearing and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). FINDING OF FACT During the November 2020 hearing, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Veteran and his representative requested to withdrew the appeal for service connection for left knee disability. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for withdrawal of entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from October 1972 to July 1977, and from July 1977 to March 1979, where he was discharged with bad conduct. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from the June 2011 and January 2014 rating decisions by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran provided testimony in May 2017 and November 2020 before the undersigned. A copy of the transcripts is associated with the claims file. The Board has more broadly characterized the claimed disability to include other psychiatric disabilities, under Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009), based on the evidence of record noting treatment for intermittent explosive disorder. See June 2011 rating decision. Although that rating decision references June 2011 VAMC CAVHCS records, and those records are not associated with the claims file yet, the Veteran’s claim has been characterized as service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability. This appeal has been advanced on the Board’s docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability. The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. 38 C.F.R. § 20.204. In the present case, in November 2020, the Veteran withdrew this appeal seeking service connection for a left knee disability and, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. See November 2020 Hearing Transcript. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disability, to PTSD is remanded. 2. Entitlement to service connection for chloracne is remanded. The Veteran asserts that he has a psychiatric disability, to include PTSD, and chloracne that were incurred in service. The evidence of record does not show a diagnosis for PTSD, or any psychiatric disability, nor chloracne. The Veteran asserts that he was sprayed with chemicals at Fort Benning during training and believes he could have chloracne due to such exposure. He also reports that he was told by a dermatologist, although it is unclear whether it was a VA or private doctor, that he has another skin disease aside from his psoriasis. See November 2020 Hearing Transcript. With regard to the PTSD, the Veteran indicates that he was treated by a psychiatrist at the Dothan VAMC approximately 10 to 15 years ago. See November 2020 Hearing Transcript. The Board notes that VA treatment records exist but have not been associated with the claims file. In particular, in a September 1995 correspondence, the Veteran reports treatment with Dr. S. at VAMC Birmingham. In a January 2001 correspondence, the Veteran reports treatment at VAMC Tuskegee and Dothan outpatient clinic. The June 2011 rating decision indicates review of electronic treatment records for the period May 29, 2008 to September 7, 2010 from VAMC CAVHCS, to include treatment for intermittent explosive disorder. However, those records are not associated with the claims file. The January 2014 rating decision indicates review of electronic record of outpatient treatment records from Central Alabama Veterans Healthcare System from August 1, 1989 to January 13, 2014. Those records are also not associated with the claims file. The only medical records on file are private treatment records from Flowers Hospital. See October 2019 Medical Treatment Record. VA records are considered part of the record on appeal since they are within VA’s constructive possession. Bell v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 611, 613 (1992). Because VA medical evidence, also referenced in the November 2020 Board hearing, are not associated with the Veteran’s claims file and are potentially probative and constructively of record, a remand is necessary to obtain all outstanding VA treatment and examination records. 3. Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 60 percent for guttate psoriasis is remanded. The Veteran has been in receipt of the maximum schedular rating of 60 percent for his psoriasis under Diagnostic Code 7816. The Board notes that the Veteran was last afforded a VA examination for his psoriasis in October 2010. The evidence indicates that the severity may have worsened since then. In particular, at his November 2020 hearing the Veteran testified that his symptoms, currently evaluated as 60 percent disabling, have worsened a lot more. He contends that his whole body is covered in psoriasis and suffers from constant itching. A Veteran is entitled to a new VA examination where there is evidence that the condition has worsened since the last examination. Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997). As the evidence suggests the Veteran’s skin disability has worsened since the most recent VA examination, a remand for a new examination is warranted to determine the current severity of his disability. The Board notes that although the Veteran is already rated under the maximum schedular rating available for Diagnostic Code 7816; however, complications of this condition (to include psoriatic arthritis) as well as other clinical manifestations are rated separately under the appropriate diagnostic code. Therefore, on remand, the examiner must determine whether there are other complications and/or clinical manifestations of the Veteran’s service-connected psoriasis. 4. Entitlement to a TDIU is remanded. Finally, because a decision on the remanded issues discussed above could significantly impact a decision on the issue of entitlement to a TDIU, the issues are inextricably intertwined. As such, a decision on the claim for a TDIU would be premature, and a remand is also required pending resolution of the intertwined claims. The matters are REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding private and VA treatment records, to include records from VAMC CAVHCS, VAMC Dothan, VAMC Birmingham, and VAMC Dothan. All efforts to obtain such records should be documented. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the current severity of his service-connected psoriasis. Report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran’s disability under the appropriate rating criteria for evaluating the skin. The examiner must specifically determine whether there are complications of this condition (to include psoriatic arthritis) as well as other clinical manifestations. 3. Then, readjudicate the Veteran’s claims on appeal. If the benefits sought on appeal remain denied, provide the Veteran and his representative a supplemental statement of the case and allow an appropriate period for response. L. CHU Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Y. Asfaw, 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.