Citation Nr: 21074722 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 17-18 142 DATE: December 16, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an increased rating in excess of 20 percent for diabetes mellitus type II is dismissed. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include as due to herbicide agents or Agent Orange exposure is remanded. FINDING OF FACT On August 2021, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, the Board received notification from the appellant and his authorized representative that a withdrawal of his increased rating for diabetes mellitus on appeal is requested. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for dismissal of the appeal for an increased rating for diabetes mellitus have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from January 1971 to January 1974. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs VA Regional Office. In August 2021, the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a Board video conference hearing. 1. Increased rating for diabetes mellitus, type II 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 An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 19.55. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or by his or her authorized representative. Id. In the present case, the appellant through his authorized representative orally withdrew the appeal for an increased rating for his diabetes mellitus disability with an understanding of the consequences during an August 2021 Board hearing. Thus, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal and it is dismissed. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Service connection for a skin disability is remanded. The Board finds that additional development is necessary before a decision may be rendered on the issue on appeal. As an initial matter, the Board observes that the Veteran is claiming service connection for eczema. However, a review of his medical treatment records reflects he has been diagnosed with eczema, dermatitis, pruritus, and venous stasis dermatitis. The Veteran further reports a history of chloracne. As such, the Board has recharacterized the Veteran's claims as being for entitlement to service connection for a skin disability eczema, dermatitis, pruritus, and venous stasis dermatitis in order to encompass all conditions reasonably contemplated by the claim. See Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009). Here, the Veteran asserts that his skin disabilities began during service and has continued since. He further asserts that his skin conditions are related to his Agent Orange or herbicide agents exposure during his service in Vietnam. In July 2015, the Veteran was provided with a VA examination for his skin disability. However, the VA examiner failed to provided any medical opinion as to the etiology of his skin disabilities. When VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007). As no medical opinion was provided, the Board finds the July 2015 VA examination to be inadequate. Thus, this matter must be remanded to obtain a VA medical opinion. The Board further observes that the Veteran's private treatment records reflects an assessment of chloracne by Dr. Hall. However, it is unclear as to whether the Veteran does indeed have any skin disabilities that have been diagnosed as chloracne. As such, on remand, a VA examiner should clarify as to whether the Veteran has a current chloracne disability. The Board also observes that additional VA treatment records were associated with his claims file after a March 2017 statement of the case. However, no supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) has been issued considering this additional evidence. As such, a remand is required in order for the AOJ to consider the evidence and furnish an SSOC. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.31 (b)(1), 19.37, 20.1304(c). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding VA or private treatment records related to the Veteran's skin disabilities and associate them with the claims file. 2. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his skin disability. The claims file, including a copy of this remand, should be made available to the examiner, who should review it in conjunction with the prior examination and should note that review in the report. The examiner is requested to do the following: (a) Identify the Veteran's current skin disability. (b) For each skin disability, provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not related to service or due to herbicide agents or Agent Orange exposure during Vietnam? The examiner is advised that a negative opinion, pertaining to his assertion that his skin disability is due to herbicide agents or Agent Orange exposure cannot be based solely on the fact that the skin disability is not on the list of diseases that are presumptively associated with exposure to herbicide agents. Additionally, the examiner must also consider the Veteran's lay statements regarding the onset of his skin disabilities during service and continuing symptoms after discharge. (Continued on the next page) A complete and detailed rationale should be provided for the opinion requested by the examiner. 3. After, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, furnish the Veteran with a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC) and provide him with an appropriate opportunity to respond. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Xiong, 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.