Citation Nr: 22019841 Decision Date: 04/03/22 Archive Date: 04/03/22 DOCKET NO. 17-55 855 DATE: April 3, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation greater than 10 percent for folliculitis (previously claimed as skin sores) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from March 1984 to November 1998. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2015 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In a March 2015 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for folliculitis (previously claimed as skin sores) was granted with a noncompensable evaluation effective April 14, 2014. In the rating decision on appeal, the RO increased the evaluation of folliculitis (previously claimed as skin sores) to 10 percent effective June 1, 2015. In October 2021, the RO issued a rating decision that identified a clear and unmistakable error in the effective date for the grant of service connection for folliculitis. The RO proposed an effective date of August 14, 2014 with an evaluation of 10 percent. That proposal was implemented in a March 2022 rating decision. As such, the period on appeal is August 14, 2014 to the present. The issue of service connection for scars as secondary to folliculitis was raised in a September 2015 private Disability Benefits Questionnaire and is referred to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for adjudication. 1. Entitlement to an initial disability evaluation greater than 10 percent for folliculitis (previously claimed as skin sores) is remanded. The Board is unable to make a fully informed decision on the issue of entitlement to an initial disability evaluation greater than 10 percent for folliculitis (previously claimed as skin sores). The Board notes that a higher 30 percent evaluation is warranted where 20 to 40 percent of the entire body is affected; or, where 20 to 40 percent of exposed areas are affected; or, where intermittent systemic therapy such as corticosteroids or other immunosuppressive drugs are required for a total duration of 6 weeks or more, but not constantly, over a 12-month period. 38 C.F.R. § 4.118, DC 7806. In a June 2015 statement, the Veteran indicates he is taking Roaccutane Isotretinoin 20 mg three times a day. A private Skin Diseases Disability Benefits Questionnaire (DBQ) indicates that the Veteran was prescribed Isotretinoin, a retinoid and type of systemic therapy, for treatment of folliculitis in 2015. The evidence of record, however, does not clearly indicate the duration of the treatment. As such, the Board cannot determine whether the duration of systemic therapy was 6 weeks or more. The Board notes that the private DBQ appears to be dated October 5, 2015; however, the DBQ was submitted prior to that date in June 2015. In addition, there were no attempts to obtain the medical treatment records from this private physician, Dr. Wael Al-Daraji. As such, remand is warranted to obtain private medical treatment records and identify the duration of the systemic therapy for folliculitis. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Request that the Veteran identify all private/ non-VA medical treatment providers for his folliculitis (previously claimed as skin sores) and provide authorizations for the release of medical records, to specifically include Dr. Wael Al-Daraji. For all identified private treatment providers in the Veteran's response, take appropriate action to secure the identified private medical records with documentation of all search efforts. Notify the Veteran of any inability to obtain sufficiently identified records or to identify the duration of the systemic therapy for folliculitis and inform him that he may submit any records in his possession directly to VA. 2. After completing the above, and any other development as may be indicated, the Veteran's claim should be readjudicated based on the entirety of the evidence. If the claim remains denied, the Veteran and his representative should be issued a supplemental statement of the case (SSOC). An appropriate period of time should be allowed for response. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if otherwise in order. K. Parakkal Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. B. Jackson, 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.