Citation Nr: 21070687 Decision Date: 11/24/21 Archive Date: 11/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-22 864 DATE: November 24, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Army from November 1968 to November 1970. The Veteran received a Purple Heart and Bronze Star. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) at a travel Board hearing in March 2019 in Indianapolis, Indiana; a transcript is of record. Subsequently, the Board remanded these matters in December 2020 for additional development to obtain examinations. The claims for service connection for a skin disability is addressed in the Remand section below. Additionally, to the extent the Veteran's representative has expressed disagreement with the assigned ratings for the Veteran's left knee disability, in a July 2021 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for left knee disability. As this grant represents a full grant of the benefit sought, this issue is no longer on appeal. Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156, 1158 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Entitlement to service connection for a skin disorder is remanded. The Veteran asserts service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to herbicide agents. He has a diagnosis of seborrheic keratosis, to include as reported in his June 2021 examination. See 6/30/2021, C&P Examination. As such, the first element of service connection has been met. He testified that he first had a skin disorder in 1978, again in the mid-1990s, and later in the 2010s. He believes that it is due to exposure to herbicide agents. The Veteran is competent and credible to report earlier skin diagnoses prior to his official diagnosis with VA. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (holding that a lay person is competent to report a contemporaneous medical diagnosis). The Board remanded this claim to obtain an examination. The June 2021 examiner provided a negative nexus opinion. The examiner explained that the Veteran's records were absent for any skin condition while the Veteran was in service. However, the examiner did not sufficiently address the Veteran's credible lay statements that he was first diagnosed with a skin disorder in 1978 by a physician who has since passed away and the records are not available. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA treatment records. All requests and responses for the records must be documented. If any identified records cannot be obtained, notify the Veteran of the missing records, the efforts taken, and any further efforts that will be made by VA to obtain such evidence, and allow him an opportunity to provide the missing records. Request the Veteran to submit any relevant private treatment reports or provide VA with authorization to obtain any such records. 2. After completing #1, regarding the Veteran's skin disability, obtain an opinion or, if necessary, schedule the Veteran for an examination. Then, address whether: (a.) Is it at least as likely as not (probability of approximately 50 percent) that the Veteran's disability was caused by a disease or injury in service, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents? **The examiner is to address the Veteran's statements to include that he first had a skin disorder in 1978 and again in the mid-1990s. The Board has found the Veteran competent and credible to report earlier diagnoses.** Note: A full credibility determination will be made at a later date, if needed, once additional evidence has been added to the claims file. Inform the examiner that a comprehensive rationale for all opinions is to be provided. All pertinent evidence, including both lay and medical, should be considered. (Continued on the next page) If an opinion cannot be given without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why and state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). Paul Sorisio Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Morales, 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.