Citation Nr: 21062033 Decision Date: 10/06/21 Archive Date: 10/06/21 DOCKET NO. 18-28 636 DATE: October 6, 2021 ORDER A clothing allowance for 2017 for camphor 0.5 percent/menthol 0.5 percent lotion and/or hydrophilic (Eucerin equivalent) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The camphor 0.5 percent/menthol 0.5 percent lotion and hydrophilic cream used to treat the Veteran's service-connected eczema does not tend to cause irreparable damage to the Veteran's outer garments. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an annual VA clothing allowance for the year of 2017 have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service in the U.S. Army from July 1993 to June 1997. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center (VAMC) in Atlanta, Georgia. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a Board hearing in April 2021. The Veteran has submitted a claim for an annual clothing allowance for the year of 2017 due to treatments associated with his service-connected eczema which damage his clothing. Claims for clothing allowances are limited to a specific year. The law provides for payment of an annual clothing allowance for each veteran who uses prescribed medication for a service-connected skin disability which causes irreparable damage to the outer garments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.810, a veteran is found to be eligible for an annual clothing allowance when the Under Secretary for Health or a designee certifies that a veteran, because of a service-connected disability, uses medication prescribed by a physician for a skin condition that causes irreparable damage to the veteran's outer garments. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(1). When such determinations are appealed to the Board, the Board can serve as the VHA designee to adjudicate whether a clothing allowance is warranted. The Board has reviewed all the evidence of record and finds that entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year of 2017 is not warranted. In 2017, the Veteran was prescribed camphor 0.5 percent/menthol 0.5 percent lotion and hydrophilic cream to treat his service-connected eczema. His VA treatment records note that hydrophilic cream is the equivalent of Eucerin. To determine that a veteran is entitled to the allowance, the Under Secretary for Health or designee must find and document that the skin medication causes irreparable damage (e.g., permanent irreversible staining, bleeding, or damage not removable with laundering or dry cleaning) to the Veteran's outer garments. See VHA Handbook 1173.15, paragraph 5(c)(3). A skin medication is defined as a cream, salve, ointment, lotion, or semisolid medicine that is used to treat, prevent, heal, protect and alleviate symptoms from a skin condition. See VHA Handbook 1173.15, paragraph 2(c). VA maintains a list of medications which tend to stain clothing. https://www.prosthetics.va.gov/psas/Clothing_Allowance.asp. This list specifically notes that neither camphor 0.5 percent/menthol 0.5 percent lotion nor hydrophilic cream cause any staining or irreparable damage to outer garments. Notably, the Veteran submitted a March 2021 statement from his treating VA physician, Dr. A.M. She stated that the Veteran uses different skin applications, including ointments and creams, to relief his skin symptoms, and that this had led to stains. While the Board has considered this statement, Dr. A.M. did not specify which ointments or creams led to stains of the Veteran's clothes. As noted above, the Veteran's treatment in 2017 included only camphor 0.5 percent/menthol 0.5 percent lotion and hydrophilic cream, which are specifically noted to not cause stains per VA's list. Notably, prior to 2017, the Veteran had been treated with other skin medications, including triamcinolone, tretinoin, and fluocinolone. Because Dr. A.M.'s statement lacks specificity regarding which skin applications led to staining, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim of entitlement to an annual VA clothing allowance for the year 2017 due to use of a skin medication. The benefit of the doubt rule has been considered, but as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, it does not apply. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Shamil Patel, 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.