Citation Nr: 21065012 Decision Date: 10/22/21 Archive Date: 10/22/21 DOCKET NO. 18-34 182 DATE: October 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's skin disability, diagnosed as eczema, did not manifest during service and is not otherwise related to service, to include due to in-service inoculations. CONCLUSION OF LAW A claimed skin disability was not incurred in or related to active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from November 1981 to April 1982 and from November 1984 to October 1989, with additional Reserves service. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a July 2017 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In February 2019, the Veteran testified at a videoconference Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). A copy of the transcript has been associated with the Veteran's electronic claims folder. In May 2019, the Board remanded the matter for further development, to include obtaining outstanding private treatment records and a VA medical opinion. In November 2019, the RO requested that the Veteran complete an authorization for release of his outstanding dermatology records, but the Veteran did not respond. The Board finds there was substantial compliance with the requested development. See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability The Veteran contends that he is entitled to a skin disability because he developed a skin rash shortly after service discharge that he believes is related to the in-service inoculations he was given in preparation for a Southwest Asia deployment. See Board Hearing Transcript, p. 6. In a March 2019 correspondence, D.S., the Veteran's friend, stated that he and the Veteran have the same symptoms of a recurring rash (his appears on his leg and back). He stated that he was deployed to the Persian Gulf in 1991 and was given inoculations and pills in preparation for deployment as well. He also stated that he knows of another Veteran who served at the same time, but a different branch, and has a similar rash. A September 2017 VA primary care initial evaluation note indicates that the Veteran reported symptoms of skin irritation on the right antecubital fossa (triangular cavity of the elbow that contains a tendon of the biceps and brachial artery) since his discharge from service. He reported being treated by outside physicians, including Dr. L.F. in Huntingdon Valley. He also reported using Ketoconazole cream and Triamcinolone cream prescribed to him by an unnamed dermatologist. For the reasons explained below, the Board finds that entitlement to service connection is not warranted. At the onset, the Board notes that although service connection is available under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 for those Veterans who served in the Southwest Asia Theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, the evidence of record does not indicate that the Veteran was deployed to Southwest Asiaalthough he stated he received inoculations for his anticipated deployment. Therefore, entitlement to service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 is not warranted. In order to obtain service connection under 38 U.S.C. § 1110 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a) a Veteran must satisfy a three-element test: (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 - the so- called 'nexus' requirement. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Service treatment records are silent for any skin complaints or diagnoses. The Veteran similarly denies any skin problems during service. See Board Hearing Transcript, p.5. Post-service VA treatment records in September 2017 indicate a possible diagnosis of eczema. In December 2020, a dermatologist opined that the Veteran suffered from eczema and that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's eczema was related to service, to include as a result of in-service inoculations. The dermatologist reasoned that eczema is a common condition and that the duration from the time the Veteran received the inoculations to the development of the rash was too long to have any connection. The dermatologist also addressed the lay statements which attempted to make connection between several Veterans who also experienced a similar rash as the Veteran. The Board assigns significant probative value to the December 2020 medical opinion. A medical opinion is most probative if it is factually accurate, fully articulated, and based on sound reasoning. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). The December 2020 dermatologist considered the Veteran's reported history, medical records and provided an opinion, supported by rationale. The dermatologist also addressed potentially favorable evidence and ultimately concluded that the Veteran's eczema was not related to service. The Board has considered the Veteran and his buddy lay statements regarding the etiology his skin disability. A Veteran is competent to report symptoms that he experiences at any time because this requires only personal knowledge as it comes to him through his senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). However, neither the Veteran nor his friend have not asserted, nor has the evidence shown, that they are qualified and/or competent to give a medical opinion regarding a diagnosis or the etiology of his skin disability. In fact, the VA examiner opined that eczema is a common disability and the fact that the Veteran and his friend both have it is coincidental. Therefore, the Board does not assign probative value to the lay statements as they relate to the etiology of the Veteran's eczema. Although the Veteran reported post-service private treatment for his skin disability, he did not respond to the RO's request for authorization of the release of those records. Therefore, any potential favorable evidence from private treatment was not considered. Given that the Board has found the unfavorable December 2020 medical opinion to be the most probative evidence of record, the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim for service connection, and the claim must be denied. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. §5107. Michael A. Pappas Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Baskerville 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.