Citation Nr: 21029476
Decision Date: 05/13/21	Archive Date: 05/13/21

DOCKET NO. 15-42 768A
DATE: May 13, 2021

ORDER

The claim for a skin disability, to include chloracne, is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has had a skin disability, to include chloracne, at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for a skin disability 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 from December 1965 to November 1967.

The claim was remanded by the Board for additional development in June 2020 and has been returned now following substantial compliance with the remand order. 

1. Entitlement to service connection for a skin disability, to include chloracne

The Veteran contends that he incurred a skin disability during active military service and suggests that it may be chloracne or hives.  

Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 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). 

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease.

The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a currently diagnosed skin disability 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).

VA examiners who evaluated the Veteran in October and December 2020 determined that while the Veteran was treated for jock itch or tinea cruris during service, he did not have a diagnosis of a skin disability during the current claim.  Further, despite regular VA treatment throughout the appeal, the medical records do not contain a diagnosis of a skin disability.

While the Veteran certainly believes that he has a current diagnosis of a skin disability, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case.  The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education, which he has not been shown to have.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence.

Given the lack of medical evidence in support of the claim, the evidence is against the finding of a current disability during the appellate period.  Accordingly, the Board must conclude that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, and it is, therefore, denied.  In arriving at the decision to deny the claim, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt rule enunciated in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).  However, as there is not an approximate balance of evidence, that rule is not applicable in this case.  See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F. 3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

 

 

Cynthia M. Bruce

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	A. B., 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.