Citation Nr: 21010076 Decision Date: 02/24/21 Archive Date: 02/24/21 DOCKET NO. 16-25 612 DATE: February 24, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2015 due to the use of Clobetasol topical cream is denied. Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2017 due to the use of Desonide and Clotrimazole topical creams is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The skin medications prescribed for the Veteran’s service-connected skin disability are not reasonably shown to have caused irreparable damage to his outer garments during 2015. 2. The skin medications prescribed for the Veteran’s service-connected skin disability are not reasonably shown to have caused irreparable damage to his outer garments during 2017. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for a clothing allowance for the 2015 calendar year for Clobetasol topical cream have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1162; 38 C.F.R. § 3.810. 2. . The criteria for a clothing allowance for the 2017 calendar year for Desonide and Clotrimazole topical creams have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1162; 38 C.F.R. § 3.810. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active duty service from August 1987 to September 1995. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from July 2015 and November 2017 letters of determination by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center. In May 2016, the Veteran requested a Board hearing. In January 2020, the Board received a written withdrawal of the Board hearing request from the Veteran. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (e). As such, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. The Board notes that additional evidence has been associated with the record since the issuance of the April 2016 and January 2018 statement of the case; however, such evidence is unrelated to the Veteran’s clothing allowance claims. Consequently, there is no prejudice to the Veteran in the Board proceeding with the adjudication of his claims at this time. Clothing Allowance The law provides for payment of an annual clothing allowance for each veteran who, because of a service-connected disability, wears or uses a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance (including a wheelchair) which VA determines tends to wear out or tear the clothing of the veteran, or uses medication which a physician has prescribed for a skin condition which is due to a service-connected disability and VA determines causes irreparable damage to the veteran’s outergarments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162. One annual clothing allowance per year is payable in a lump sum, when the following eligibility criteria are satisfied: (1) A VA examination or examination report from a private physician as specified in 38 C.F.R. § 3.326 (c) discloses that the veteran wears or uses certain prosthetic or orthopedic appliances which tend to wear or tear clothing (including a wheelchair) because of such service-connected disability or disabilities and such service-connected disability is the loss or loss of use of a hand or foot compensable at a rate specified in 38 C.F.R. § 3.350 (a), (b), (c), (d), or (f); or (2) The Undersecretary for Health or a designee certifies that, because of such service-connected disability or disabilities, a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance is worn or used which tends to wear or tear the veteran’s clothing, or that because of the use of a physician-prescribed medication for a skin condition that is due to the service-connected disability or disabilities, irreparable damage is done to the Veteran’s outergarments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162; 38 C.F.R. § 3.810 (a). A veteran is entitled to an annual clothing allowance for each such prosthetic or orthopedic appliance (including, but not limited to, a wheelchair) or medication used by the veteran if each appliance or medication affects a distinct type of article of clothing or outergarment. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810 (a)(2). A veteran is entitled to two annual clothing allowances if a veteran uses more than one such prosthetic or orthopedic appliance, (including, but not limited to, a wheelchair), medication for more than one skin condition, or an appliance and a medication, and the appliance(s) or medication(s) together tend to wear or tear a single type of article of clothing or irreparably damage a type of outergarment at an increased rate of damage to the clothing or outergarment due to a second appliance or medication. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810 (a)(3). In determining whether a clothing allowance is warranted, the Board shall consider the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1991). 1. Entitlement to clothing allowance for the year 2015 due to the use of Clobetasol topical cream. 2. Entitlement to clothing allowance for the year 2017 due to the use of Desonide and Clotrimazole topical creams. The Veteran contends that the Clobetasol topical cream permanently stained his undergarments, bed linen, and pillowcases. See August 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD). He further stated that he had to purchase new pieces of each of the items due to the use of Clobetasol. With regard to the 2017 clothing allowance claim, the Veteran reported that the medication he used permanently stained his clothing and bed linen, which he often had to replace. See March 2018 Form 9. In this case, the Board notes that the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) noted that the Veteran was prescribed Clobetasol Propionate 0.05 percent for 2015, and Desonide 0.05 percent for the 2017 clothing allowance year. It was further noted that the Veteran used Clotrimazole cream. The AOJ denied the claims because the prescribed medications for a service-connected skin condition did not cause irreparable damage to outergarments according to VA’s Pharmacy and Prosthetic workgroup. However, in the February 2021 Appellant’s Brief, the Veteran’s representative contends that the AOJ has denied the claim premised on generalizations made in an internal prosthetics guide and based on an alleged internal finding by the Pharmacy and Prosthetic workgroup. The Veteran’s representative further stated that Veterans Health Administration (VHA) has not provided a copy of that documentation for consideration in the file or to the Veteran for his understanding. However, both the April 2016 and January 2018 statements of the case referenced that the VHA Handbook defines the clothing allowance program and establishes procedures for the administration of the clothing allowance benefit. The April 2016 and January 2018 statements of the case further indicates that a guide and updated listing created by the Prosthetic and Pharmacy workgroup identifies skin medications, ointments, or lotions that may cause irreparable staining, discoloration, bleeding, and damage not removable by laundering or dry cleaning. Moreover, the statements of the case state that all decisions are based on established procedures and guidelines documented in Handbook 1173. The Board notes that it does not appear that the Veteran or his representative requested a copy of the Handbook from VHA. In any event, the Veteran and his representative have been provided with applicable laws and regulations and adequate reasons and bases for the determinations rendered. The appropriate opportunity to respond has also been provided. There is no prejudice to the Veteran in the Board proceeding with the adjudication of his claims at this time and no additional action in this regard is warranted. The Board observes that the skin medications Clobetasol Propionate 0.05 percent, Desonide 0.05 percent, and Clotrimazole are listed by the VA Prosthetic and Sensory Aids Service as skin medications that would in fact stain or damage clothing. Additionally, the Veteran is competent to report that his topical skin medications cause irreparable damage to his clothing in the form of staining his undergarments and bedding. However, as the clothing allowance regulations only allow the benefit to be granted for skin medications that damage outer garments, damage to undergarments and bedding cannot form the basis for an additional clothing allowance award. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810 (a)(1)(ii)(B). In this regard, the 2015 and 2017 Applications for Annual Clothing Allowance (VA Form 21-8678) advised the Veteran that “[c]lothing such as shirts, blouses, pants, skirts, shorts and similar garments permanently damaged by qualifying appliances and/or medications are considered in clothing allowance decisions. [But] shoes, hats, scarves, underwear, socks, and similar garments are not included.” Thus, the Veteran’s undergarments, bed linen, and pillowcases would not be considered an outergarment. Moreover, the medications have been determined to not cause permanent damage to clothing. In light of the above, the Board concludes the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim of entitlement to annual VA clothing allowance for the year 2015 and 2017 due to use of Clobetasol Propionate 0.05 percent, Desonide 0.05 percent, and Clotrimazole. Thus, the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply for these issues. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). (Continued on the next page) The appeal is denied. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Brennae L. Brooks, 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.