Citation Nr: A25035259 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 221123-318334 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance, plus an additional allowance for damage at an increased rate, for the year 2020 due to the use of Clotrimazole is granted. Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance, plus an additional allowance for damage at an increased rate, for the year 2020 due to the use of Triamcinolone is granted. Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2020 due to the use of Mupirocin is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran credibly asserts that his Clotrimazole and Triamcinolone, prescribed daily to treat his service-connected skin disabilities, causes irreparable damage to clothing. 2. The Veteran was not prescribed Mupirocin in the year 2020. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for entitlement to two annual clothing allowances for the year 2020 due to the use of Clotrimazole have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810. 2. The criteria for entitlement to two annual clothing allowance for the year 2020 due to the use of Triamcinolone have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810. 3. The criteria for entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2020 due to the use of Mupirocin have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1162, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.810. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from August 1969 to August 1971. The matter is on appeal from an August 2020 Veterans Health Administration (VHA) decision that denied entitlement to a clothing allowance. In November 2022, the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) received a VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, wherein the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. 1. Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2020 due to the use of Clotrimazole 2. Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2020 due to the use of Triamcinolone 3. Entitlement to an annual clothing allowance for the year 2020 due to the use of Mupirocin The law provides for payment of an annual clothing allowance for each veteran who, because of a service-connected disability, wears or uses a prosthetic or orthopedic appliance, such as a wheelchair, which VA determines tends to wear out or tear the clothing, or uses prescribed medication for a service-connected skin disability which causes irreparable damage to the outer garments. 38 U.S.C. § 1162. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.810, a veteran is found to be eligible for an annual clothing allowance if The Under Secretary for Health or a designee certifies that a veteran uses medication prescribed by a physician for one skin condition, which is due to service-connected disability, that causes irreparable damage to the veteran's outergarments. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(1)(ii)(b). When such determinations are appealed to the Board, the Board can serve as the VHA designee to adjudicate whether a clothing allowance is warranted. More than one clothing allowance may be assigned for multiple types of garments affected. A veteran is entitled to an annual clothing allowance for each medication used if such medication (i) satisfies the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(1); and (ii) affects a distinct type of article of clothing or outergarment. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(2). The Board observes that clothing allowances are assignable for each separate skin medication. See 76 Fed. Reg. 70883 (Nov. 16, 2011); Sursely v. Peake, 551 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Additionally, two clothing allowances may be warranted for a single type of garment affected if a veteran uses more than one medication for more than one skin condition and the medications (i) satisfy the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(1); and (ii) together tend to wear or tear a single garment or irreparably damage a type of outergarment at an increased rate of damage to the clothing due to a second appliance or medication. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(3). The Veteran is service-connected for acne and pseudo folliculitis barbae. His medical records in 2020 show that he was prescribed topical medications Triamcinolone and Clotrimazole on a daily basis to treat his service-connected skin disabilities. He was prescribed Mupirocin on one occasion in 2015 for a MRSA infection. He has not been prescribed this medication in the year 2020. In a January 2019 Board hearing, the Veteran testified that the creams were greasy, and he had to discard clothing due to the damage. The Veteran is competent to describe whether the topical medications he used caused irreparable damage to his clothing, inasmuch as such effect is readily observable by a lay person. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331,1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The Board finds his testimony credible. Furthermore, the Veteran submitted photographs regarding the extensive surface area involved - which is recognized by the currently assigned 60 percent rating. The evidence supports the award of clothing allowances for the year 2020 for the Veteran's use of Triamcinolone and Clotrimazole. It is noted that the Veteran is service-connected for acne and pseudo folliculitis barbae. Thus, creams are for a skin condition that is due to service-connected disabilities, and these are prescribed for daily use. As discussed above, the Board finds the Veteran credible regarding his reports of damage to his clothing. Therefore, clothing allowances for Triamcinolone and Clotrimazole are warranted. With respect to Mupirocin, the records reflect that this was prescribed once in 2015, and has not been prescribed in the year 2020. As such, the criteria for a clothing allowance for this medication have not been met. Further, two clothing allowances can be granted due Clotrimazole and Mupirocin because they together cause wear and tear on an article of clothing, shirts, at an increased rate. 38 C.F.R. § 3.810(a)(3). T. MAINELLI Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Adeleke, Tomi 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.