Citation Nr: 21073814 Decision Date: 12/10/21 Archive Date: 12/10/21 DOCKET NO. 19-12 518 DATE: December 10, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for chloracne, claimed as due to exposure to herbicide agents, is remanded. Entitlement to service connection for facial scars residual to chloracne is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1966 to January 1968. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in July 2018 by a Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In April 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the record. At such time, the undersigned held the record open for 30 days for the submission of additional evidence, which was received later that month. 1. Entitlement to service connection for chloracne, claimed as due to exposure to herbicide agents. 2. Entitlement to service connection for facial scars residual to chloracne. The Veteran asserts that he developed chloracne as a result of his acknowledged in-service exposure to herbicide agents coincident with his service in the Republic of Vietnam, thereby entitling him to service connection for such disorder and residual facial scarring. In this regard, veterans who served in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning on January 9, 1962, and ending on May 7, 1975, are presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents, and the law provides a presumption of service connection for certain diseases, to include chloracne or other acneform disease consistent with chloracne, if such become manifest to a compensable degree within a year after the last date on which the veteran was exposed to an herbicide agent during active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307 (a)(6)(ii), 3.309(e). In the instant case, the Veteran has been diagnosed with chloracne with residual facial scarring, as reflected at a June 2018 VA examination and in a November 2018 letter from his VA treatment provider, and such medical professionals link his chloracne to his presumed in-service herbicide exposure. Additionally, at the April 2021 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that his chloracne manifested to a compensable degree within one year of his service in Vietnam. He further reported seeking treatment in service for a cystic lesion, although such is not documented, and he had a cystic lesion removed soon after service, but such related records are unavailable due to the passage of time. However, neither the Veteran nor the medical opinions of record address the facial scarring noted on his June 1965 pre-induction examination, indicating that he had facial scarring prior to his entry to service. Thus, a remand is necessary to obtain an addendum opinion addressing such relevant evidence. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (holding that when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Return the record, to include a copy of this remand, to the June 2018 VA examiner, or an appropriate substitute if she is unavailable, so as to obtain an addendum opinion addressing the etiology of the Veteran's claimed chloracne with residual facial scarring. The need for an additional examination is left to the discretion of the clinician offering the addendum opinion. Following a review of the record, the examiner should opine whether it is at least as likely as not (i.e., a 50 percent or greater probability) that the Veteran's currently diagnosed chloracne had its onset during service or within one year of the end of his service in Vietnam on January 11, 1968. The examiner should also clearly identify all current scarring that resulted from the Veteran's reported chloracne. In addressing such matters, the VA examiner must address the significance, if any, of the notation of scarring on the Veteran's chin and cheek at his June 1965 pre-induction examination, and the Veteran and his spouse's reports that he developed cystic acne type lesions during his tour in Vietnam, which continued within the year after his return. A rationale for any opinion offered should be provided. A. JAEGER Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Northcutt, 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.