Citation Nr: 21025772 Decision Date: 04/29/21 Archive Date: 04/29/21 DOCKET NO. 16-14 502 DATE: April 29, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include melanoma is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1952 to February 1959, with additional periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA) and inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2012 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue on appeal previously was denied by the Board in November 2019. The Veteran appealed the decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). In a December 2020 Order, pursuant to a December 2020 Joint Motion for Remand (JMR), the Court vacated the Board’s November 2019 decision and remanded the claim for action consistent with the terms of the parties’ JMR. The Veteran’s claim for service connection for melanoma has been recharacterized as reflected on the title page. See Brokowski v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79, 84 (2009); Clemmons v. West, 206 F.3d 1401 (Fed. Cir. 2000). Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition, to include melanoma. The Veteran contends that his current skin condition is related to his active military service, to include sun exposure and exposure to ionizing radiation. As an initial matter, the Board notes that the competent evidence of record does not show that the Veteran has had a current diagnosis of melanoma at any point during the appeal period. In this regard, the evidence of record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with melanoma, which was immediately excised, in September 2009, more than two years prior to receipt of his November 2012 claim. See September 2009 private treatment record; April 2012 Clinical Visit Note, Final Diagnosis; July 2019 VA examination (showing date of last treatment as September 2009). The evidence of record further shows the Veteran has not experienced any recurrence or residuals from his melanoma or treatment, including any scars or depressions. Thus, as the Veteran’s melanoma resolved approximately two years prior to receipt of his claim, and he has not experienced any residuals or recurrence, the Board finds that he does not have a current disability of melanoma. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319 (2007) (service connection may be warranted if there was a disability present at any point during the claim period, even if it is not currently present); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013) (when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability immediately prior to a veteran filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency). Nonetheless, private treatment records show that he has been diagnosed with other skin conditions during the appeal period, including dermatophilosis, actinic keratosis, seborrheic keratosis, cherry angioma, hemangioma, and nevus. In the December 2020 JMR, the parties agreed that the etiology opinion obtained in July 2019 was inadequate because the examiner did not consider the additional possible sun exposure the Veteran may have experienced during his periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA after separation from active duty, which cumulatively equate to nearly five years of additional service. Thus, the Board finds that a remand is warranted in order to obtain a new etiology opinion. The JMR also found that the Board erred by not addressing whether a radiation dose estimate pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.311(a) was required. Nonetheless, the Board finds that a radiation dose estimate does not need to be obtained on remand. While melanoma is considered a radiogenic disease, as explained above, the Veteran has not had a current diagnosis of melanoma at any point during the appeal period. None of the Veteran’s current skin conditions are enumerated as radiogenic diseases, and the Veteran has not submitted a competent medical opinion or cited any scientific or medical evidence that any of his current skin conditions may be related to ionizing radiation exposure. As such, the Board finds that a radiation dose estimate does not need to be obtained on remand. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain a VA medical opinion regarding the etiology of the Veteran’s skin condition from a qualified medical professional. The need for a physical examination is left to the discretion of the VA examiner. The examiner must review the entire claims file and a copy of this Remand. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that any of the Veteran’s current skin conditions (including dermatophilosis, actinic keratosis, seborrheic keratosis, cherry angioma, hemangioma, and/or nevus) had their onset in, or are otherwise related to, active service or active duty for training (ACDUTRA), or is related to any injury incurred during inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). In addressing whether any of the Veteran’s skin conditions are related to sun exposure, the examiner should consider potential sun exposure during the Veteran’s active duty (August 1952 to February 1959, specifically, the April 1955 notation of dermatographia and the June 1958 notation of a skin rash) as well as potential exposure during his periods of ACDUTRA and INACDUTRA from February 1959 to May 1982 that equate to approximately 5 years of additional service. The examiner should also address any claimed exposure to ionizing radiation. A complete rationale must be provided for all opinions expressed. The rationale must consider and discuss the pertinent evidence of record, to include the Veteran’s lay statements. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Mortimer, 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.