Citation Nr: 21076088 Decision Date: 12/22/21 Archive Date: 12/22/21 DOCKET NO. 19-20 079 DATE: December 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disorder claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The Veterans skin condition is not a result of his military service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a skin condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served in the Army from June 1972 to June 1975. The Veteran testified at a July 2021 videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A hearing transcript is of record. The Board is aware that per a correspondence from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) dated February 2016, the Veteran's service treatment records are unavailable. In cases where service medical records are unavailable, VA has a heightened duty to explain its findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt rule. Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 83, 85 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). The Board's analysis of the Veteran's claim was undertaken with this duty in mind. The case law does not, however, lower the legal standard for proving a claim for service connection but rather increases the Board's obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all the evidence that may be favorable to the Veteran. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). Service Connection The law provides that service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, establishing service connection requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. See Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 253 (1999). 1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition The Veteran asserts that his skin condition is due to his military service. Specifically, he contends that while in service he noticed there were chemicals being sprayed in his area. The Board agrees that the Veteran has current diagnoses of a skin condition. However, the evidence weighs against finding that his condition is related to any injury, event, or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a), (d). In cases where service medical records are unavailable, VA has a heightened duty to explain its findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit of the doubt rule. Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 83, 85 (1992); O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991). Here, in a January 2016 correspondence, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) responded that all available records were sent. Nevertheless, there is no documentation of an in-service injury. In fact, the first noted indication of a skin condition was during a November 2006 VA examination. The Veteran stated that while on active duty he had a total body skin rash but does not know his diagnosis or treatment. The veteran denied having a skin rash during the time of the examination. The next indication of a skin condition was in July 2016 when the Veteran reported skin rash on his arms and chest since 1973. Upon examination, the treating physician noted dry peeling skin on the chest and left lateral forearm. The treating physician further noted that the areas in his lower back skin folds are a result of obesity. These indications were not noted for multiple decades after the Veteran separated from service. Therefore, regardless of whether there was an injury in service or not, there is no clinical evidence of continuous symptoms. It is true that the Board may accept the Veteran's statements regarding symptoms in service, if such statements are credible. In this regard, the Veteran has stated that he experienced symptoms since 1973 while being in the field and various jungle environments. However, in this case, the Veteran's statements alone are insufficient to conclude that there was an injury in service such that service connection could be granted. Notably, the Veteran testified that his skin condition began between 1973 and 1974 but was unsure. Additionally, he testified that he was given some type of soap to wash with that made his condition worse. However, this statement is inconsistent with his November 2006 VA examination statement where he denied having a skin rash at that time. Further, it seems likely that if the Veteran had such an injury, he would have mentioned it when he filed a claim for pension in 2001. In the Board's view, this makes it less likely that the Veteran's symptoms are related to active service. Therefore, continuity is not established based on the clinical evidence of record or the Veteran's statements. Moreover, the competent medical evidence does not indicate a relationship between the Veteran's current diagnoses and his active service. Specifically, the record does not imply an indication that the Veteran's skin condition is related to an in-service illness or event. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Because the medical evidence of record does not point to evidence tending to suggest a nexus to service, service connection is not warranted. Consideration has been given to the statements made by the Veteran relating his skin condition to active service. The Federal Circuit has held that "[l]ay evidence can be competent and sufficient to establish a diagnosis of a condition when (1) a layperson is competent to identify the medical condition, (2) the layperson is reporting a contemporaneous medical diagnosis, or (3) lay testimony describing symptoms at the time supports a later diagnosis by a medical professional." Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (quoting Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007)). In this case, although the Veteran is competent to report certain symptoms, he is not competent to provide testimony regarding a diagnosis and/or etiology of a skin disorder. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377, n.4. Because they are not diagnosed by unique and readily identifiable features, it does not involve a simple identification that a layperson is competent to make. Therefore, the unsubstantiated statements regarding the claimed diagnosis and etiology of the Veteran's condition is found to lack competency. Considering the above discussion, the Board concludes that the weight of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. The appeal is denied. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to an acquired psychiatric disorder claimed as posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is remanded. The Veteran has asserted that he suffers from a psychiatric condition, which stems from witnessing the suicide of a fellow service member. For his part, the Veteran testified that during basic training a fellow trainee hung himself and he and his friend found him. The Veteran also provided a buddy statement in October 2016 where his friend stated that in Louisiana during basic training on June 30, 1972, they went to the barracks to pick up a fellow basic trainee known as Brooklyn and found him hanging from a pipe in the latrine. It is noted that a formal finding was made in February 2016 that the information required to corroborate the stressful events described by the Veteran is insufficient to send for corroboration. However, the Board notes that the Veterans buddy statement was not of record during this time. As such, the Board will remand the psychiatric appeals so that a VA examination may be conducted which addresses the question of any etiological link between a present psychiatric disability and this in-service incident, as reported by the Veteran. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination for his psychiatric disability claim. The examiner is asked to give a diagnosis to account for the Veteran's various psychiatric symptoms and to provide a response to the following: If the Veteran is diagnosed with PTSD, is such a diagnosis related to a specific stressor event. For any psychiatric disorder other than PTSD, it is at least as likely as not that such disorder is etiologically related to such service. A full rationale for any opinion should be included. If the Veteran is unable to provide any opinion without resorting to speculation, the examiner should explain why this is so and/or what other testing would be necessary to provide the proper opinion. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Vample, Erica