Citation Nr: 21042409 Decision Date: 07/13/21 Archive Date: 07/13/21 DOCKET NO. 15-23 960 DATE: July 13, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for skin conditions, to include seborrheic dermatitis with rosacea, of the face, arms, legs, and thighs is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1967 to February 1969, with service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2012 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Petersburg, Florida. In a January 2019 decision, the Board denied entitlement to service connection for seborrheic dermatitis with rosacea, of the face, arms, legs, and thighs. In October 2020, the Court issued a memorandum decision vacating the Board's January 2019 decision due to its error in failing to offer an opinion on the Veteran's post-service skin conditions and herbicide exposure in limiting its decision to the current skin condition's relationship to in-service tinea. Entitlement to service connection for skin conditions, to include seborrheic dermatitis with rosacea, of the face, arms, legs, and thighs The Veteran asserts that his current skin condition including seborrheic dermatitis with rosacea, of the face, arms, legs, and thighs is related to service. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that: The dermatitis was incurred in military service as I am not medical, I don't know if it was caused by Agent Orange or just happened because I was in the jungle. What I do know is that it was incurred in the Army and still exists. When I got out, I used over-the-counter meds until it became worse and more irritating and I enrolled in the Lake City FL VAMC. At that time, I was placed on topical steroids. I continue on different topical medication for the rash. The Veteran's service treatment records show two treatments for tinea of the hand in 1968. The Veteran did not note any skin complaints and his skin was noted as normal on his February 1969 separation physical examination. The 2012 VA examiner indicated that the Veteran does not have chloracne. The examiner stated "the veteran's seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, stasis dermatitis and sun-damaged skin is not caused by tinea of the hand, resolved, that was incurred while in service. Tinea of the hand, seborrheic dermatitis and rosacea are all distinct entities and one does not cause the other." The Board seeks a well-supported medical opinion as to whether the Veteran's current skin condition, to include seborrheic dermatitis, rosacea, stasis dermatitis and sun-damaged skin, is related to his herbicide exposure that has been conceded by VA. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Inquire of the Veteran and his counsel as to any pertinent private treatment records not presently included in the electronic claims file. Ask that the Veteran execute authorizations to release any such records identified and document all efforts to obtain the records in the claims file, including second attempts to request records after initial requests that did not receive a response. 2. Associate any updated VA treatment records with the electronic claims file. 3. After completion of steps one and two, schedule a VA examination with a dermatologist to determine: a. The nature and extent of any skin or dermatologic condition(s) that Veteran now has or has had since service, and b. whether any skin condition identified above is more likely than not (i.e. 50% or greater probability) related to herbicide exposure or any other aspect of service. Any tests or procedures necessary to provide a competent medical opinion should be performed. The examiner should provide a clear rationale for all medical opinions expressed and is encouraged to support her or his medical opinions with authoritative medical literature where helpful. (Continued on the next page) The examiner is reminded that the Veteran is competent to provide lay observations of signs, symptoms and time frames. If any statement of the Veteran is discredited in whole or in part, an explanation should be provided. 4. Upon completion of the above development, readjudicate the claim. If the benefit sought remains denied, provide the Veteran and his counsel with a Supplementary Statement of the Case (SSOC) and after allowing a period, return the claim to the Board. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Adams Hill, 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.