Citation Nr: 21021350 Decision Date: 04/12/21 Archive Date: 04/12/21 DOCKET NO. 16-48 768 DATE: April 12, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability of the bilateral lower extremities is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from October 1971 to November 1973. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2016 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Wichita, Kansas which denied service connection for rash, bilateral lower extremities caused by jungle exposure in Cuba. The Veteran timely filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) and substantive appeal. In July 2019, the Board denied the claim for entitlement to service connection for a skin disability of the bilateral lower extremities. Thereafter, the Veteran appealed the denial to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In an August 2020 order, the Court granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) and remanded the matter to the Board for action consistent with the JMR. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his eczematous dermatitis is due to his active military service. Specifically, he contends that while he was stationed in Cuba, he was exposed to jungle that caused rashes. At the outset, the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for his claimed skin disability and an opinion as to the etiology of the disability has not otherwise been obtained. VA is obliged to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion in a claim for service connection when the record contains competent evidence that the claimant has current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of disability, the record indicates that the disability or symptoms of disability may be associated with active service, and the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The threshold for finding a link between current disability and service is low. Locklear v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 410 (2006); McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. A claimant’s reports of a continuity of symptomatology can satisfy the requirement for evidence that the claimed disability may be related to service. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. Additionally, lay evidence may be competent on a variety of matters concerning the nature and cause of disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, n. 4 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (“sometimes the layperson will be competent to identify the condition where the condition is simple, for example a broken leg, and sometimes not, for example, a form of cancer”); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The August 2020 JMR found that a remand was necessary due to the Board’s failure to adequately provide an adequate statement of reasons or basis for its decision. Specifically, the Board erred by not adequately addressing the competence and credibility of the Veteran’s lay statements that his bilateral lower extremity rash started during service in Cuba. Additionally, the Board erred by not adequately discussing whether a VA examination is warranted to address whether the Veteran’s current bilateral lower extremity rash is related to service. The Board did not adequately address whether the Veteran’s lay statements that his bilateral lower extremity skin rash started in service are competent and/or credible pursuant to Jandreau and Buchanan, and, if so, whether these lay statements are sufficient to satisfy the low threshold of the third prong of the McClendon analysis by demonstrating that his current skin condition “may be associated” with service. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d at 1377; Buchanan, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337; McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. The Veteran has consistently reported that his skin disability began when he was stationed in Cuba. He submitted a statement from a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, who did not serve with the Veteran, who attested to conversations and observations regarding the Veteran’s rash on his right leg and calf. S.D.M. stated that during the raining seasons, it was especially difficult to maintain sanitary conditions and that such conditions caused the Veteran many recurring health issues such as stress and continual outbreaks of severe rashes. Additionally, VA treatment records reflect a past medical history of seborrheic dermatitis, nummular eczema, and comedones with a current diagnosis of eczematous dermatitis. In an October 2016, the Veteran reported that his service treatment records document that he had service in Cuba and that his VA treatment records show a diagnosis of eczematous dermatitis. The Veteran argued that the evidence is sufficient to provide such an examination. Additionally, in June 2019 and March 2021 argument from the Veteran’s representative, a VA examination was requested to determine the etiology and nexus of any skin disability. Notably, the Veteran’s DD-214 indicates that there is no foreign service. Additionally, the service treatment records of record do not indicate any foreign service, to include in Cuba. However, his military personnel records do indicate that the Veteran was in a “special mission force;” and, it is not clear whether the personnel records are complete or whether they do not contain every place the Veteran was located throughout his service. Nonetheless, the Veteran generally contends that his skin disability began in service and there has been no argument from the Veteran or his representative that the service treatment records show documentation of a skin disability or symptoms thereof. In light of the above, there is evidence that the Veteran has a current skin disability which may be associated with active military service. A remand is necessary to afford the Veteran an appropriate VA examination to determine the nature of his claimed disability and to obtain a medical opinion as to whether it is related to service. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain any outstanding service personnel records to determine whether the Veteran’s active duty included service in Cuba. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination (or telehealth interview, review of the record, etc., if an in-person examination is not feasible) by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any current skin disability. The clinician must opine whether any skin disability experienced by the Veteran since approximately 1972/1973 at least as likely as not (1) began during any period of active service; (2) manifested within one year after discharge from any period of active service; and (3) is related to an in-service injury or disease. The clinician must provide a complete rationale for each opinion given. L. B. CRYAN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Laroche, N. 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.