Citation Nr: 21076817 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-02 892 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is granted. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. FINDING OF FACT Resolving all doubt in the Veteran's favor, the Veteran's skin disability began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a skin condition have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from August 1969 to June 1970. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 2016 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2021, the Veteran testified at a video conference before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is available in the record. New and Material Evidence As an initial matter, the Board notes the AOJ characterized the issues of entitlement to service connection for a skin disability and a right knee disability as requiring new and material evidence to reopen the claims. After a review of the evidence of record, the Board finds the April 2012 rating decision never became final as relevant military personnel records were added to the file after this decision and were not previously considered by the AOJ. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (c). As such, new and material evidence to reopen the claims is not required as the April 2012 rating decision never became final. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition The Veteran seeks entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, which he claims manifested in service and has continued since service. Generally, to prevail on a claim of service connection on the merits, there must be competent evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) medical, or in certain circumstances, lay evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury, and (3) medical evidence or other competent evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disease or injury. See Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247 (1999); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In addition, service connection may also be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38C.F.R. §3.303 (d). Importantly, the Veteran bears the burden of presenting and supporting his claim for benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (a). In its evaluation, the Board considers all information and lay and medical evidence of record. When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Board gives the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. Id; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). Initially, the Board acknowledges it has recharacterized the Veteran's claim for service connection for pseudofolliculitis barbae, to service connection for a skin disability in order to better reflect the total disability picture of the Veteran's skin condition. Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1, 4-5 (2009) (a claim should not be limited to the disorder as characterized by the Veteran but must be characterized and addressed based on the reasonable expectations of the non-expert claimant and the evidence in processing the claim). Service treatment records are silent for complaints, diagnoses, or treatment for a skin disability. Since service, the Veteran has been diagnosed with several skin disabilities such as: folliculitis, cellulitis, and mild erythema. See August 2008 VA Treatment Record. The record reflects that the Veteran has been prescribed several medications to treat skin infections, skin fungal infections, and acne of the chin/cheeks. See generally VA Treatment Records. The Veteran has consistently and credibly asserted that he has had the same symptoms of a skin disability in and since service. The Veteran is competent to report the occurrence of lay-observable events such as symptoms or certain readily observable disabilities. 38 U.S.C. § 1153(a); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Symptoms of a skin disability that have been present in and since service, are something that a lay person is competent to observe and report. As the evidence is in relative equipoise as to whether the Veteran has had a skin disability since service, the claim must be decided in the Veteran's favor. Under such circumstances and with granting the Veteran the benefit of any doubt in this matter, the Board concludes that service connection for a skin disability is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.310; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). The nature and extent of the problem is not before the Board at this time. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right knee condition is remanded. The Veteran testified at the November 2021 Board hearing that he has been treated at VA for his right knee disability since 2004. However, the oldest VA treatment records in the claims file are from 2008. As such, a remand is warranted to ensure all pertinent VA treatment records from 2004 to the present are associated with the Veteran's claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain and associate with the claims file all outstanding VA treatment records from 2004 to the present. 2. After obtaining all needed authorizations from the Veteran, associate with the claims file any outstanding private treatment records If possible, the Veteran's representative should submit any new pertinent evidence that the Board does not have. This would greatly help the Board and help expedite the case. John J. Crowley Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board L. Holcombe, 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.