Citation Nr: 21009340 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 17-55 580 DATE: February 22, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin cancer is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served honorably, including a period of active duty from May 1979 to March 1983 and Reserve service thereafter. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Following a July 2019 Board decision denying the claim for service connection for skin cancer, a September 2020 order of the US Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims vacated that decision and remanded for compliance with the terms of the parties’ joint motion for partial remand. The Veteran has contended that his skin cancer is due not only to his time as a Navy diver during active duty but also during his ten years of Reserve service. As noted in the joint motion, though a VA examination and opinion was provided in January 2015, the examiner’s negative opinion was based on “accumulated sun damage during [the Veteran’s] 3 years of active military service,” without considering the additional ten months of active duty and the Veteran’s ten years of Reserve service. Moreover, complete documentation of the Veteran’s active and inactive duty for training in connection with his Reserve service is not of record. The Board notes personnel records submitted by the Veteran in July 2020 showing dates of training in the 1980s and 1990s, but unfortunately these documents as uploaded are not fully legible. Thus, the Board will remand for verification of the Veteran’s dates of Reserve training and for a new VA opinion that accounts for the Veteran’s full length of service. The Board will also direct the clinician to consider, as related at a February 1983 separation medical examination from active duty, that the Veteran had skin cancer removed while on active duty, as well as a June 21, 1979 service treatment record showing the Veteran had a “blistering sunburn” on his lower leg. As a final note, the Board acknowledges a July 2016 opinion letter from Dr CK, the Veteran’s private skin care treatment provider since the early 1990s, who opined that the Veteran’s “medical condition is related to time in military service, due to extensive sun exposure as a diver.” Though Dr CK’s letter noted the Veteran’s service as “1979-1995,” the letter did not make clear that the Veteran’s service changed during the period from active-duty service to Reserve status, and therefore did not make clear that it accounted for the change in amount of in-service sun exposure that would result from that change in service status. Both Dr CK and the January 2015 VA examiner stated that skin cancer is directly related to cumulative sun exposure, and therefore the Board finds that an opinion that makes clear it has considered the precise extent of the Veteran’s in-service sun exposure, as shown by verified dates of Reserve training, is necessary to soundly adjudicate the Veteran’s claim. See Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain the Veteran’s military personnel records and confirm his dates of Reserve service and all associated dates of active duty training and inactive duty training. 2. Then, obtain an addendum opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s skin cancer. If the clinician finds that an examination would be helpful, schedule one. The clinician must opine on the following: Is any skin cancer since approximately 2014 at least as likely as not related to the Veteran’s service as a Navy diver, to include active-duty service from May 1979 to March 1983 as well as any active duty for training or inactive duty training during ten years of Reserve service? Consider and discuss that the Veteran had skin cancer removed from his back during active duty service (with a scar from that procedure noted at February 1983 medical examination), as well as a June 21, 1979 active-duty service treatment note that the Veteran had a blistering sunburn on the lower leg. 3. After the above development and any other development deemed necessary is completed, readjudicate the Veteran’s claim. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Davis, 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.