Citation Nr: 21013598 Decision Date: 03/09/21 Archive Date: 03/09/21 DOCKET NO. 17-13 198 DATE: March 9, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to increased rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from June 2002 to June 2005. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office (RO). In an August 2013 rating decision by RO, the Veteran was granted service connection for his pseudofolliculitis barbae and was assigned a noncompensable rating, effective July 3, 2013. The Veteran then filed a claim for increased rating in September 2015, which was denied in January 2016, by RO. The Veteran subsequently testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a November 2020 hearing. A hearing transcript has been associated with the record. 1. Entitlement to increased rating for pseudofolliculitis barbae is remanded. The Veteran contends that his pseudofolliculitis barbae, currently rated at a noncompensable rating, has increased in severity, and thereby warrants an increased rating. At his January 2021 Board Hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the Veteran specifically contended that his disability had worsened, resulting in increased flareups of painful ingrown hairs, bumps on his skin, and an itchy painful rash. The Veteran also indicated that the topical medication he had been using to treat his condition was not providing adequate relief. A review of the evidence reveals that the Veteran’s most recent VA examination for his skin disorder is from March 2017. The Veteran also answered affirmatively when asked if he would attend a VA examination if one were to be scheduled for him. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is warranted in order to provide the Veteran another VA examination to assess the current nature and severity of his service connected pseudofolliculitis barbae. See Snuffer v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 400 (1997); Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 377 (1994); VAOPGCPREC 11-95 (1995). The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claim on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in their possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). Following the receipt of outstanding records, schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the current severity of his service connected pseudofolliculitis barbae. The record, to include a complete copy of this Remand, must be made available to the examiner, and the examination report should include discussion of the Veteran's documented medical history and lay assertions. The examiner should provide a full description of the disability and report all signs and symptoms necessary for evaluating the Veteran's disability under the rating criteria. The examiner must attempt to elicit information regarding the severity, frequency, and duration of symptoms. A rationale should be provided for all opinions. KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Kashif I. Ali, 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.