Citation Nr: 18142582 Decision Date: 10/17/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 16-07 159 DATE: October 17, 2018 ORDER Service connection for glaucoma is denied. FINDING OF FACT Glaucoma is not shown to be casually or etiologically related to an in-service injury, incident, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for glaucoma have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1112, 1113, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.102, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service in the United States Army from March 1965 to March 1968. This case comes before the Board of Veteran Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. Service Connection Service Connection may be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred or aggravated in active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Generally, a veteran must establish: “(1) evidence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service.” Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Additionally, 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). Service connection for certain chronic diseases, such as glaucoma (an organic disease of the nervous system), may be established on a presumptive basis if the chronic disease was shown as (1) chronic in service; (2) manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period, usually one year, after separation from service; or (3) was noted in service with continuity of symptomatology since service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101(3), 1112(a)(1), 1113; Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(b), 3.307, 3.309(a); see Veterans Benefits Administration Adjudication Procedures Manual M21-1, pt. III, subpart iv, ch. 4, § N.1.d (2018). The Veteran may also prove direct service-connection. 38 U.S.C. § 1113(b); see Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d. 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding any issue material to the determination of a matter, the Secretary shall give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53 (1990). A claim may be denied only if the evidence preponderates against the claim. Alemany v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 518 (1996) (citing Gilbert, at 54). Entitlement to service connection for glaucoma The Veteran was diagnosed with primary open angle glaucoma in 2012 and contends that it is service-related. As an initial matter, it is important to note that the Veteran was not given a VA examination for an opinion on whether his current diagnosis is related to service. However, the Board determines that one is not required. A VA examination is required only when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptom of a disability is service-related, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence to decide the case. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). Here, the Veteran failed to present evidence establishing that he was diagnosed with glaucoma or an eye disability during service, or that it is otherwise related to service. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not contain any complaints, treatment, or a diagnosis of glaucoma. Both the pre-service and separation examinations indicate that the Veteran’s eyes were normal and that he had 20/20 vision. Post-service VA treatment records indicate that the Veteran visited a VA Medical Center for the first time in 2005, however, it was not until 2007 that the Veteran reported any issues with his vision. Therefore, since the second and third elements were not satisfied, a VA examination is not required. Since glaucoma is classified as a “chronic disease” under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a), the provisions of § 3.303(b) applies. Walker, 708 F.3d. at 1337. Thus, the question for the Board is whether the Veteran is entitled to compensation under 38 C.F.R. §3.303(b), or alternatively, whether the Veteran is entitled to compensation based on a direct service connection. After a review of the available evidence, the Board finds that service connection for glaucoma is not warranted under a presumptive or direct basis. Despite the positive diagnosis in 2012, there is no probative evidence that the Veteran’s glaucoma first manifested during service, that it manifested within the presumptive period after service, or that it is otherwise related to service. The record also lacks documentation of symptoms related glaucoma since service. Additionally, Veteran has not submitted any lay evidence, or independent medical evidence to support his assertion that his glaucoma is service-related. Thus, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for glaucoma is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.302; see also Gilbert. K. PARAKKAL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A.B.Y. Nguyen, Law Clerk