Citation Nr: 18150701 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 15-17 542 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for bilateral eye disability is denied FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not suffer from a bilateral eye disability that was incurred from or otherwise related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.310 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served from November 1977 to September 1990. This decision comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeal (Board) from a December 2013 Rating Decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) in Jackson, Mississippi. In March 2018, a Travel Board hearing was held in Jackson, Mississippi, on the issue of dry eyes. At the hearing, the Veteran requested to have his case advanced on the docket, and the undersigned granted the Veteran’s motion. The Veteran had mentioned a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, which the undersigned noted was not an issue over which she had jurisdiction. If the Veteran wants to submit a claim for service connection for a psychiatric disorder, he should submit a formal claim with the RO. I. Duty to Assist The Veteran claimed in his notice of disagreement that the RO failed to look for his records. The record shows that VA fulfilled its duties to notify and assist under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) and implementing regulations. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a) (2017). The Veteran was provided with the appropriate notice, afforded a VA examination, and his service treatment records, and post-service medical records were obtained. Therefore, the Board finds that VA has fulfilled its duty to assist. Service Connection for Bilateral Eye Disability II. Legal Criteria Service connection may be granted for disability due to disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted for any disease initially 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 substantiate a claim of service connection, there must be evidence of: a present claimed disability; incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury in service; and a causal relationship between the claimed disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The determination as to whether these requirements are met is based on analysis of all the evidence of record and an evaluation of its credibility and probative value. Baldwin v. West, 13 Vet. App. 1 (1999); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When there is an approximate balance of positive and negative evidence regarding the merits of an issue material to the determination of the matter, the benefit of the doubt in resolving each such issue shall be given to the claimant. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. When all of the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a fair preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55 (1990). II. Analysis The Veteran contends that he has a current bilateral eye disability that is related to his service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current bilateral eye disability that began during service, or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the grant of service connection for a bilateral eye disability. The reasons follow. The Veteran’s service treatment records show that the Veteran was treated for dry eyes in 1981. In the August 1990 Report of Medical History, the Veteran denied a history of eye trouble, and clinical evaluation of the eyes at that time was normal. Thus, a chronic bilateral eye disability was not shown in service. Additionally, in an April 2015, VA Compensation & Pension exam, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran did not have a current bilateral eye disability. The examiner noted that the Veteran had good tear lakes in each eye. The Board finds this opinion to be highly probative in deciding this claim because it was based on the examiner’s medical training and expertise, and an in-person exam. The Veteran has submitted statements to VA asserting that he has a current bilateral eye disability related to service. However, since the Veteran is not competent to diagnose an eye disability because an eye diagnosis is sufficiently complex enough to require medical training and experience, his statements are thus not competent for establishing whether he has a current bilateral eye disability. Accordingly, since the preponderance of the evidence is against a finding of a current bilateral eye disability, the benefit of the doubt doctrine does not apply, and the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disability is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert, 1 Vet. App. at 55. The Board notes that the undersigned remembers this Veteran in reading the hearing testimony and wants to let the Veteran know that his 13 years of service to this country is very much appreciated. Additionally, the undersigned appreciated the Veteran’s candid testimony and regrets that a more favorable determination could not be made. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. H. Vasil, Associate Counsel