Service connection for an eye disability is denied.

Citation Nr: 26001416 Decision Date: 01/30/26 Archive Date: 01/30/26 DOCKET NO. 14-31 221A DATE: January 30, 2026 ORDER Service connection for an eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's current eye disability did not have onset during active service, and the most competent, credible, and probative evidence of record persuasively weighs against a finding that the eye disability was incurred because of service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an eye disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from February 1975 to March 1976 and on active duty for training from August 1973 to December 1973. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2013 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran's notice of disagreement (NOD) was received in June 2013. The RO issued the statement of the case (SOC) in July 2014 addressing service connection for left knee injury, right foot injury and eye disabilities. The Veteran's VA Form 9, substantive appeal was received in September 2014. The Veteran requested a hearing before the Board in his September 2014 VA Form 9; however, the hearing request was subsequently withdrawn in a January 2015 written statement from the Veteran. See January 2015 correspondence. Due to a subsequent request for a hearing, the Veteran was scheduled for a hearing in September 2024. However, the Veteran was a no show for the hearing. As the Veteran did not provide any good cause explanation for his absence, or request to reschedule the hearing, the hearing request is deemed withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). In April 2018, June 2020, November 2022, and May 2023, the Board remanded the case to the RO for further development and adjudicative action. The Board notes that the Veteran was service connected for his left knee in an August 2012 decision. The Veteran's claim for his right foot was denied in June 2020. The only issue remaining is the claim for an eye disability. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury suffered or disease contracted in active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service injury or disease; and (3) a relationship between the two. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d). Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability. The Veteran asserts that?he has an eye disability that began during active service.? See, e.g. June 2013 NOD. Service treatment records (STRs) reflect treatment for blepharitis in September 1973 during the Veteran's period of active duty for training (ACDUTRA). The service medical provider noted that there was no evidence of inflammation or infection and that visual acuity was normal. The Veteran was prescribed eye drops. See September 1973 service treatment note. The Veteran's February 1976 separation examination reflects that his eyes were clinically assessed as normal. See February 1976 Report of Medical Examination. Post-service evidence of record shows that the Veteran reported blurry vision and was diagnosed with glaucoma and refractive error of the eyes in August 2009. The Veteran reported a strong family history of glaucoma in his brother, sister, and mother. See August 2009 VA treatment note. The Veteran was provided a VA examination in November 2012. The Veteran recounted that he was diagnosed with blepharitis in 1973 and treated with neosporin eye drops. He denied any current treatment for blepharitis. The Veteran reported that he was diagnosed with glaucoma 4 years ago and currently uses Travatan eyedrops at bedtime. The VA examiner provided current diagnoses of cataracts and glaucoma. The examiner found that the Veteran's decrease in visual acuity was attributable to his cataracts. The examiner reiterated that the Veteran does not currently have blepharitis and explained that neither the Veteran's cataracts nor his glaucoma are related to his in-service blepharitis. The examiner found that both conditions are age-related. A VA addendum medical opinion was obtained in March 2024. The VA medical specialist opined that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The specialist noted that the opinion is based solely on a review of the claims file as the Veteran did not attend the scheduled in-person examination. The specialist acknowledged the Veteran's treatment for blepharitis in 1973 but noted that a review of the evidence reveals that the Veteran has not had blepharitis at any point during the period on appeal. The specialist stated that the Veteran currently has a diagnosis of cataracts. Regarding glaucoma, the specialist explained in detail that review of the Veteran's history, examination reports, and testing results do not support a diagnosis of glaucoma and that previous diagnoses were in error. The specialist noted that the criteria used to make a diagnosis of glaucoma requires documentation of optic nerve damage and visual field changes consistent with the diagnosis. The specialist explained that the Veteran has had multiple visual field tests which have been normal and also had an OCT scan of his optic nerves which was reported as normal. The VA medical specialist stated that the fact that the Veteran's intra-ocular pressure has occasionally been significantly higher than normal, combined with his strong family history of glaucoma has led medical providers to initiate glaucoma medication as a preventative measure and that this has subsequently led to the mislabeling of his condition as glaucoma. The specialist reiterated that the only condition the Veteran had during active service was blepharitis and that this condition clearly resolved with no visual acuity loss or functional visual loss of his most recent VA examination in 2019. The specialist stated that neither glaucoma nor cataracts were documented during the Veteran's active service and that neither condition is caused by or associated with the Veteran's in-service blepharitis. The specialist explained that glaucoma and cataracts are frequently occurring conditions for which increasing age and family history are the leading risk factors. The Board finds that the March 2024 VA medical opinion is adequate because the examiner thoroughly reviewed the claims file and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22?Vet. App.?295 (2008). Further, there is no medical opinion of record to the contrary. The Board acknowledges the August 2019 VA medical opinion wherein the examiner indicated that "[i]t is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent or greater probability) that such diagnosed glaucoma and cataracts are otherwise the result of a disease or injury incurred during active duty or his period of ACDUTRA." However, in the rationale portion of the opinion, the examiner states that the Veteran's cataracts are age related and that there is no evidence on evaluation that the Veteran has glaucoma. In other words, the examiner's conclusion and the rationale supporting it are entirely inconsistent and contradictory. The Board therefore assigns this opinion no probative weight. As such, the March 2024 VA medical opinion of record is the most probative evidence of record. While the Veteran is competent to report observable symptoms, he is not competent to provide an opinion linking his current eye disability to his active service. An opinion of that nature?requires medical expertise and is outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson.?Kahana?v. Shinseki,?24?Vet. App.?428?(2011);?Jandreau?v. Nicholson,?492 F.3d 1372?(Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide an etiology opinion in this case. Accordingly, the Board finds that the benefit-of-the-doubt rule is not applicable as the evidence is not in approximate balance and entitlement to?service connection for an eye disability is not warranted. 38?U.S.C. §?5107 (b);?Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (en banc). Paulette Vance Burton Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Modesto, Victor 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.