Citation Nr: 18140009 Decision Date: 10/02/18 Archive Date: 10/02/18 DOCKET NO. 16-19 348 DATE: October 2, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a left eye condition (claimed as injury) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a current left eye condition related to disease or injury incurred or aggravated in active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left eye condition are not satisfied. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1979 to April 1982. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). Service connection for a left eye condition is denied. Law Service connection will generally be awarded when a veteran has a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To establish service connection, the evidence must show (1) a current disability; (2) incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and (3) a link or nexus between the in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Hickson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 247, 252 (1999). A claimant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt when there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence on any issue material to the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Analysis The Veteran seeks service connection for a left eye condition claimed as due to an injury sustained during his period of active service. See August 2015 VA Form 21-4138; June 2014 VA Form 21-526EZ (Fully Developed Claim). For the following reasons, the Board finds that service connection is not established. The service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for a foreign body in his right eye, and that he reported decreased vision in the right eye after the foreign body was removed. They do not show an injury to the left eye or treatment for a left eye condition, including his currently diagnosed pterygium. Post-service treatment records do not reflect diagnoses or treatment of a right eye condition. Moreover, the Veteran has not claimed service connection for a right eye condition, but has consistently stated that he seeks to establish service connection for a left eye condition. See June 2014 VA Form 21-526EZ (Fully Developed Claim); April 2015 VA Form 21-4238; August 2015 VA Form 21-4138. A VA examination was conducted in November 2014. According to the examination report, the Veteran told the examiner that his left eye was bothering him, and that it was his left eye that was injured during service. The examiner diagnosed a pterygium in the left eye. After examining the Veteran and reviewing the file, the examiner opined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran’s left eye pterygium was related to active service because the corneal foreign body was in the right eye, not the left, and could not have caused the left eye pterygium, which the examiner also noted apparently developed after service. The Board does not find it credible that the Veteran injured his left eye in service, when the service treatment records consistently show that only the Veteran’s right eye was treated for a corneal foreign body and reduced vision after removal of the foreign body, and do not reflect treatment or complaints regarding the left eye. See Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 511 (1995) (holding that when determining whether lay evidence is satisfactory, the Board may properly consider, among other things, its consistency with other evidence submitted on behalf of the Veteran). These contemporaneous records are more reliable and carry more weight than the Veteran’s statements made years later in the context of supporting a claim for benefits. Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59, 68 (1994) (contemporaneous evidence has greater probative value than history as reported by the claimant). Moreover, it is clear from the Veteran’s statements that in asserting that he injured his left eye in service, he actually has in mind the right eye injury documented in the service treatment records, as opposed to a separate injury involving the left eye. Specifically, in an August 2015 statement (VA Form 21-4138), he wrote that the attached service treatment records supported service connection for his left eye pterygium (claimed as left eye injury), and that they showed continuing and repeated complaints regarding his left eye. The service treatment records he submitted with this statement were duplicates of the ones already of record, and show repeated treatment for his right eye but not his left eye. He again submitted service treatment records with his April 2016 VA Form 9 that likewise are duplicates and reflect only injury and treatment of his right eye. Thus, the Board finds that in stating that he injured his left eye in service, the Veteran is not referring to a separate injury, but instead is asserting that the injury to his right eye in service, as documented in the service treatment records he submitted, in fact happened to his left eye. The service treatment records conflict with and outweigh the Veteran’s statements on this issue, as they clearly show that only his right eye was injured and treated. In sum, the Veteran’s statement that he injured his left eye in service is not credible and thus must be discounted. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362, 368 (2005) (noting that the witness’s credibility affects the weight to be given to his testimony). Accordingly, the Board finds that a disease or injury involving the left eye was not incurred or aggravated in active service. There is no indication that the Veteran’s left eye pterygium may be related to his right eye injury in service. The November 2014 VA opinion weighs against such a relationship. Consequently, service connection is not established. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a); Holton, 557 F.3d at 1366. (Continued on the next page)   Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against the claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. P.M. DILORENZO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Rutkin, Counsel