Citation Nr: 21032848 Decision Date: 05/28/21 Archive Date: 05/28/21 DOCKET NO. 15-02 184 DATE: May 28, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a skin condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's skin condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a skin condition have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from September 1966 to September 1969. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veteran's Law Judge in a May 2018 hearing. A transcript of this hearing is of record. The Board remanded the claims in August 2020 to obtain an addendum opinion. The Board finds that there has been substantial compliance with the remand directives. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 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). Service connection may be presumed for certain chronic diseases which develop to a compensable degree within one year after discharge from service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. That presumption is rebuttable by probative evidence to the contrary. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). However, regulations create a presumption of service connection for certain diseases found to be associated with exposure to an herbicide agent such as that used in Agent Orange. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1113, 1116; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(d), 3.309(e). Absent affirmative evidence to the contrary, such diseases will be service connected even if there is no evidence of the disease during service, provided that herbicide exposure is established. The term "herbicide agent" means a chemical in an herbicide, including Agent Orange, used in support of the United States and allied military operations in the Republic of Vietnam during the period beginning January 9, 1962 and ending May 7, 1975 (the Vietnam Era). 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6). Here, the Veteran had service in Vietnam during his active duty service. As such, exposure to herbicides is conceded. Skin Condition The Veteran claims that he has a skin condition that is the result of exposure to Agent Orange while in-service. The evidence shows that he has been diagnosed with seborrheic dermatitis. This diagnosis was later confirmed in a July 2019 VA examination. The examiner also noted that the Veteran has had many dermatologic issues treated over the years. The evidence also demonstrates that the Veteran served in the Republic of Vietnam and, as such, is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents. See DD Form 214 (the Veteran received a Vietnam Service Medal). However, none of the diagnosed skin conditions noted in the July 2019 VA examination are enumerated in the list of conditions associated with exposure to herbicides. Thus, presumptive service connection for those conditions are not warranted under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(d), 3.309(e). This finding does not preclude the Veteran from obtaining service connection on a direct basis. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has diagnosis of seborrheic dermatitis, as well as several other dermatologic issues, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that they began during active service, or are otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in July 2019 to determine the etiology of any and all of the Veteran's skin conditions. An addendum opinion was obtained in December 2020 for the examiner to better clarify their July 2019 opinion. The examiner ultimately concluded that it was less likely than not that the Veteran's skin disabilities had their clinical onset during active service or are related to any in-service disease, event, or injury, and/or manifested within one year of service separation. Specifically, the examiner noted that Agent Orange is not a known cause of the Veteran's several dermatologic conditions that the Veteran had been diagnosed with through the years. Additionally, the examiner noted the Veteran's claims and testimony were reviewed, however, there was no reasoning provided as to why the Veteran's claimed skin condition were related to service. Lastly, the examiner found, and is confirmed in the record, no noted complaints for any of the claimed conditions either during service or on the Veteran's exit examination. Based on the lack of complaints in-service as well as the fact that none of the dermatologic conditions are etiologically related to Agent Orange the examiner ultimately concluded that it is less likely than not that the claimed conditions are related to the Veteran's service. There is no competent medical opinion to refute this conclusion or otherwise link the Veteran's claimed skin condition to his service. Although the Veteran is competent to report observable complaints, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis or etiology to account for such complaints. Rather this question requires medical expertise due to the complex nature of the disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). As no causal connection between the Veteran's claimed disabilities and his military service has been established service connection is not warranted. In sum, while the Veteran believes his skin disability had its onset during service, or is otherwise related to service, the Board reiterates that the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that a nexus between the Veteran's service and these disabilities exists. JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Jorge Barroso, 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.