Citation Nr: 21014442
Decision Date: 03/12/21	Archive Date: 03/12/21

DOCKET NO. 16-15 357
DATE: March 12, 2021

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include chloracne as due to exposure to herbicide agent is rendered moot and therefore is dismissed.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. An April 2020 rating decision granted service connection for chloracne.

2. The issue is moot and there remains no questions of law or fact to be decided.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The grant of service connection for chloracne renders moot the issue on appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104, 7105(d)(5); 38 C.F.R. § 20.101.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from February 1969 to November 1969 and from November 1969 to September 1971.  He served in the Republic of Vietnam from November 1970 to September 1971. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board), on appeal from an April 2012 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). 

The Veteran testified before the Board at an August 2016 hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer a member of the Board; a transcript of such hearing is of record. Because the Veteran is entitled to an opportunity for a hearing before all Board members who will ultimately decide his appeal, a July 2020 letter was sent to the Veteran notifying him of the option to request an additional Board hearing with a Veterans Law Judge who would decide his appeal, and that failure to respond within 30 days would waive the option of the additional hearing. See Arneson v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 379, 388-89 (2011). Another letter was sent in December 2020. As of this date, there has been no response from the Veteran. Accordingly, his request for a hearing is considered withdrawn. 38 C.F.R.§ 20.704(d).

The Board previously considered this appeal in November 2018 and remanded this issue for further development including scheduling a VA examination. 

Dismissal

The Board has jurisdiction where there is a question of law or fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary of VA under a law that affects the provision of benefits administered by VA. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (2019). The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5) (2012).

This appeal stems from an April 2012 rating decision that denied entitlement to service connection for chloracne. Subsequently, in an April 2020 rating decision, the Veteran was granted service connection for residual scar left facial area as a residual of chloracne and residual scars posterior back area as a result of chloracne. 

The April 2020 rating decision states that service connection has been established for the chloracne with residual scaring. The rating decision explicitly states “This is a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal.” As a result, the Board does not have jurisdiction to decide the issue of entitlement to service connection for chloracne. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 

 

H. SEESEL

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	E. Romero-Sanchez, 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.