Citation Nr: A21020086 Decision Date: 12/16/21 Archive Date: 12/16/21 DOCKET NO. 211105-196187 DATE: December 16, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for skin rash is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1971 to May 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2021 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). On August 23, 2017, the President signed into law the Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act, Pub. L. No. 115-55 (to be codified as amended in scattered sections of 38 C.F.R. § U.S.C.) 131 Stat. 1105(2017), also known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). This law creates a new framework for veterans dissatisfied with the VA decision on their claims to seek review. This decision has been written consistent with the AMA framework. Following the August 2021 rating decision denying the Veteran's claim, he submitted a timely VA Form 10181 (Notice of Disagreement) and selected the Direct Review Lane. In adjudicating the appeal, the Board may consider the evidence of record at the time of the August 2021 rating decision. This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7107(a)(2); 38 C.F.R. § 20.902(c). Service connection for skin rash is remanded. The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a skin rash due to his exposure to herbicide agents in service. The RO found that the Veteran has been diagnosed with a disability, specifically noting VA treatment records from January 2018 showing a diagnosis of seborrheic keratoses on the back. The RO also found that the Veteran performed service in Vietnam and was thus exposed to herbicide agents. The Board is bound by these favorable findings. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). The remaining question is thus whether the Veteran's current disability is related to his active service, including his exposure to herbicides. The Veteran contends that his condition has been present since service and was caused by his exposure to herbicide agents. The Board finds the record is sufficient to indicate that the Veteran's current skin disability may be associated with the Veteran's service. The failure to afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his skin disability constituted a pre-decisional duty to assist error. VA must provide an examination when there is competent evidence of a disability (or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability) that may be associated with an in-service event, injury, or disease, but there is insufficient information to decide the claim. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Lay testimony as to continuity of symptomatology can satisfy the requirement for evidence that the claimed disability may be related to service, and the threshold for finding that the disability (or symptoms of a disability) may be associated with service is low. See McClendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. Furthermore, the Veteran is competent to testify to in-service injuries, symptoms and events. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the matter is remanded to provide a VA examination determining the nature and etiology of the Veteran's skin disability. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his skin condition. The claims file, including this remand, should be made available to the examiner and review should be noted in the requested report. All relevant tests and studies should be conducted, and the results reported. After reviewing the file and the results of any test, the examiner should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's skin condition was incurred in or due to his active service, including his conceded exposure to herbicides. The examiner should specifically address the Veteran's statement that he has experienced symptoms since his discharge from active service. All findings and conclusions should be supported with a complete rationale based on consideration of the medical and lay evidence of record. If it is not possible to provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the reason that is so should be explained, indicating whether there is additional evidence that could enable an opinion to be provided or whether the inability to provide an opinion is based on the limits of medical knowledge in general or of the examiner. S.C. KREMBS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Snyder, 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.