Citation Nr: 18146416 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 16-31 560 DATE: October 31, 2018 ORDER Service connection for a bilateral eye disability to include moderate anisometropia and presbyopia is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has refractive error which is not a disability for VA purposes; the preponderance of the competent evidence of record is against a finding that he has a disability manifested by impaired vision that had an onset in active service, or is otherwise related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for the establishment of service connection for an eye disability, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), (c).   REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1990 to September 2011. Service Connection Service connection will be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1153; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.306. Service connection may also 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). Establishing service connection generally requires medical or, in certain circumstances, lay evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) an in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). For purposes of entitlement to benefits, the law provides that refractive errors of the eyes are developmental defects and not disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (c), 4.9. In the absence of superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be allowed for refractive error of the eyes (such as including myopia, presbyopia, anisometropia, hyperopia, and astigmatism), even if visual acuity decreased in service, as this is not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation relating to service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (c), 4.9. Thus, VA regulations specifically prohibit service connection for refractory errors of the eyes unless such defect was subjected to a superimposed disease or injury which created additional disability. See VAOPGCPREC 82-90, 55 Fed. Reg. 45,711 (1990) (service connection may not be granted for defects of congenital, developmental or familial origin, unless the defect was subject to a superimposed disease or injury). Developmental defects, such as refractive error, automatically rebut the presumption of soundness and therefore are considered to have preexisted service. 38 U.S.C. § 1111; see also Quirin v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 390, 397 (2009); Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996). Reasonable doubt concerning any matter material to the determination is resolved in the Veteran’s favor. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. Service connection for a bilateral eye disability characterized as moderate anisometropia and presbyopia The Veteran contends that his right eyesight decreased rapidly due to anisometropia and presbyopia. The probative evidence of record clearly demonstrates that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of an eye disability for VA purposes at any time during the pendency of his claim. A July 2011 VA eye examination noted that ophthalmoscopic examination of the right and left eyes revealed moderate anisometropia and presbyopia, corrected to good vision in both eyes. Though the Veteran was diagnosed with diabetes, no diabetic retinopathy or other ocular pathology was found in either eye. During a February 2016 VA eye consultation, the physician found that the Veteran did not have diabetic retinopathy. The Board parenthetically notes that service connection has been established, in pertinent part, for diabetes mellitus type II. Error of refraction or refractive error is defined as "deviation from optimal focusing of light (emmetropia) by the lens of the eye onto the retina, such as myopia, hyperopia, astigmatism, or anisometropia. Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary Online (32nd Ed. 2012). In addition, presbyopia is defined as "hyperopia and impairment of vision due to advancing years or to old age....." Id. As hyperopia, anisometropia and presbyopia are refractive errors of the eye, they are not diseases or injuries within in the meaning of applicable legislation for disability compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303 (c), 4.9. The requirement of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time a claim for VA disability compensation is filed or during the pendency of the claim, even if the disability resolves prior to VA’s adjudication of the claim. See McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 312 (2007). Considering all the probative evidence, the Board finds that there were no diagnoses of an eye disability for VA compensation purposes during the appellate period. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013). Congress specifically limited entitlement for service-connected disease or injury cases where such incidents had resulted in disability. Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992); see also Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141, 143 (1992); Gilpin v. Brown, 155 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 1998). A “current disability” means a disability shown by competent evidence to exist. Chelte v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 268 (1997). Simply put, in the absence of proof of present disability, namely an eye disability for VA compensation purposes, there can be no valid claim. The Board has considered the Veteran’s lay statements that he will develop an eye disability due to his active duty service. While a Veteran is competent to report treatment and symptoms of a disorder, he is not competent to diagnose or medically attribute any in-service symptom or incident to a current disorder. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313, 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). This issue is also medically complex, as it requires knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body and interpretation of complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the competent medical evidence. (Continued on the next page)   In reaching the conclusions above, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for an eye disability that doctrine is not applicable in the instant appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361, 1364 (Fed. Cir. 2001); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). Therefore, the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability characterized as moderate anisometropia and presbyopia is denied. S. L. Kennedy Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD J. Costello, Associate Counsel