Citation Nr: 21013244 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 15-35 101 DATE: March 9, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition affecting the torso is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a skin condition affecting the torso at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a skin condition affecting the torso are not 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 on active duty in the U.S. Army from July 1986 to January 1987, from September 1990 to May 1991 and from October 2008 to October 2009. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a December 2019 decision, the Board remanded this matter to the RO for further development. More specifically, the Board directed the RO to schedule the Veteran for a new examination to determine the etiology of the Veteran’s separate skin conditions affecting his torso and foot, and to evaluate other theories of entitlement. In a September 2020 Rating Decision, the RO granted service connection for the Veteran’s foot condition but denied service connection for his skin condition affecting his torso in a subsequent September 2020 Supplemental Statement of the Case. The matter now returns to the Board. Service Connection Generally, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition affecting the torso is denied. The Veteran contends that his condition first manifested during service, and, alternatively, that they are secondary to his exposure to burn pits and other environmental hazards during his Gulf War service. See May 2014 Notice of Disagreement. The Veteran’s service personnel records confirm his service in Southwest Asia during the Gulf War. See DD214. His service treatment records are silent to any complaints, treatments or diagnosis of a skin condition on his torso, or any other area on his body. In a May 1995, the Veteran was afforded a Persian Gulf War examination where it was noted that he had no symptoms related to dermatology. In an August 2008 medical record, it was reported that the Veteran did not have any lesions on his skin. In an August 2015 Gulf War General Medical Examination, the examiner noted that there was no diagnosed illness for which an etiology was established. In an August 2015 VA examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with a rash of an unknown etiology. The examiner noted that the Veteran did not have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs and/or symptoms related to a rash. An addendum to the opinion stated that the Veteran was also noted to not have any rash or other skin problem on examination by his primary care physician dated October 2012, April 2015, and October 2014. In a February 2020 C&P examination, the Veteran was diagnosed with dermatitis or eczema. The examiner opined that it is less likely than not (50 percent probability or greater) that the condition had its onset during or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s military service. The examiner reasoned that although the Veteran and his wife has described an acute transient truncal rash, "like bug bites," lasting only for about 20-30 minutes. She indicated that the acute rash has not been observed by any medical personnel nor have photos been provided. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not take Benadryl, Prednisone nor any other medication for this and has had no treatments done for his skin condition. The examiner knew of no such phenomenon, and there was nothing found in her search of public medical [reports] that matches the description of this rash, particularly in terms of duration. Rashes exist for longer than 20-30 minutes. The examiner again emphasized that no one else, including any medical personnel has witnessed this rash. No photos are available which she finds to be unusual. For all of the above reasons, it is less likely than not that this phenomenon began in the service or is somehow related to service. The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation. See Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (1997) (holding that §§ 1110 and 1131’s requirement of the existence of a present disability for VA compensation purposes cannot be considered arbitrary); see also McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 323 (2007) (holding that the requirement of a current disability is met when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA compensation is filed or during the pendency of that claim). Consequently, the evidence of record must show that the Veteran currently has the disability for which benefits are being claimed. Here, the Veteran’s examinations did not show that a disability existed at the time of examination. In the August 2015 examination, the examiner stated that it appears the condition had resolved. In the February 2020 examination, the examiner noted that the Veteran stated his rashes lasted for a duration of 20-30 minutes. The examiner reasoned that rashes tend to exist longer than 20-30 minutes and at the time of examination she saw no rash. In the absence of proof of a present disability (and, if so, of a nexus between that disability and service), there can be no valid claim for service connection. See Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351, 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992) (stating that service connection presupposes a current diagnosis of the condition claimed, to at least confirm the Veteran has it; without this minimum level of proof, there can be no valid claim). Although a rash of unknown etiology was noted on an August 2015 examination, there is no indication that the Veteran has had a chronic skin disability that affects his torso. Therefore, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of a skin condition affecting the torso and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). As the record does not reflect a current diagnosis related to a skin condition affecting the torso, the cornerstone element of service connection has not been met, and service connection is not warranted. See Brammer, Id. The Board acknowledges the statements of the Veteran as to the existence and etiology of his skin condition and acknowledges that the Veteran is competent to give evidence about what he experienced. Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465 (1994). Although the Veteran is competent to report his current symptoms, as a lay person he does not have the education, training, experience to diagnose or opine as to the etiology of the condition. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Accordingly, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran meets the criteria for service connection for a skin condition affecting the torso. In reaching the conclusion above, the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim, the doctrine is not applicable. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). M. MCPHAULL Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board, B. Adeyemi Department of Veterans Affairs 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.