Citation Nr: 18159362 Decision Date: 12/19/18 Archive Date: 12/18/18 DOCKET NO. 16-51 150 DATE: December 19, 2018 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition is denied. REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a headache condition, to include as secondary to the Veteran’s service-connected right eye condition, is remanded. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has, or has had at any time during the appeal, a current diagnosis of a left eye condition as a result of the corneal burn he suffered during service; the record contains no suggestion that the visual acuity in his left eye worsened during or as a result of his service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left eye condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 501, 1110, 1153, 1160, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.306, 3.383, 4.76. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from August 1992 to August 1996. These matters come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision that denied service connection for bilateral eye injuries and for a headache condition. Since that time, an August 2016 rating decision has awarded service connection for a right eye injury. Consequently, that issue is no longer before the Board. Additionally, the Veteran filed a timely November 2018 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with a rating decision issued that same month. The Veteran has not yet received a responsive Statement of the Case (SOC), but at the beginning of December 2018 VA sent the Veteran correspondence indicating that it was taking the appropriate steps to respond to the NOD. Consequently, the Board finds that a remand for an SOC is not required at this time. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a left eye condition The Veteran originally sought service-connection for bilateral eye injuries as a result of events that took place during his service. His right eye injury has been service-connected as a result of an in-service event where a foreign body entered his eye and he subsequently underwent procedures to have the foreign body removed and the damage to his eye was repaired insofar as that was possible. The Veteran also suffered an injury to his left eye during service in a separate September 1994 event where he suffered a left cornea burn. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current left eye condition, other than the decreased visual acuity for distance vision present at the time he entered service, and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). A July 2016 VA examiner evaluated the Veteran and determined that there were no significant findings or reduction of vision in the Veteran’s left eye. Further, despite a quite long history of treatment records from both VA and non-VA medical facilities, there is no evidence of a left eye condition. The Board also finds that the Veteran’s visual acuity in his left eye did not change during the course of or as a result of his service. Consequently, the Veteran cannot be granted service connection for aggravation a visual disability that was present and noted at the time he entered active service. 38 U.S.C. § 1153; 38 C.F.R. § 3.306; Falzone v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 398, 402 (1995). The Veteran’s service treatment records show that at the time he entered service in August 1992, his uncorrected distance vision was noted to be 20/200 which could be corrected to normal vision. In September 1994, the Veteran suffered a burn to his left cornea. However, within a few days of the incident, this condition was noted to be resolving. In April 1995, the Veteran complained of burning in his eyes. However, neither of these incidents appears to have resulted in significant changes or further treatment in the Veteran’s left eye during his service. At the time of his separation examination in June 1996, the Veteran was noted to have corneal scar in his right eye, but no condition was noted in his left eye. His uncorrected distance vision was measured at 20/200 in his left eye, and it remained capable of being corrected to normal vision. The July 2016 VA examination, in addition to noting no significant examination findings with respect to an injury to Veteran’s left eye, also recorded that his distance vision in his left eye uncorrected remained 20/200 and could still be corrected to normal vision. The Board has also considered whether the Veteran is entitled to compensation based on the special consideration for paired organs. Compensation is payable for the combinations of service-connected and nonservice-connected eye disabilities where the impairment of vision in one eye is a result of a service-connected disability and the impairment of vision in the other eye is the result of a nonservice-connected disability if the impairment of vision in each eye is rated at a visual acuity of 20/200 or less; or where the peripheral field of vision for each eye is 20 degrees or less. 38 U.S.C. §§ 501(a), 1160; 38 C.F.R. § 3.383(a)(1). However, here the Veteran’s left eye would be treated as having normal visual acuity because the Veteran’s visual acuity in the left eye can be corrected to normal vision and ratings of visual acuity are based on the corrected visual acuity. 38 U.S.C. § 1155; 38 C.F.R. § 4.76(b). The July 2016 VA examiner also indicated that there was no loss to the Veteran’s visual fields. Consequently, compensation is not available under these rules. 38 U.S.C. §§ 501(a), 1160; 38 C.F.R. § 3.383(a)(1). Finally, the Board notes that the Veteran has not presented any specific contentions regarding the left eye. In his original claim for service connection, he mentioned only the incident where a foreign body entered his eye. This claim did not become a claim for bilateral eye injuries until VA characterized it that way in the June 2013 rating decision. In his notice of disagreement, the Veteran adopted VA’s characterization of his claim as bilateral eye injuries, but continued to describe only the event that resulted in the corneal scar to his right eye. The Veteran only discussed his right eye injury when he gave his history to the July 2016 VA examiner. Finally, in the October 2016 attachment to his substantive appeal, the Veteran only disputed the denial of benefits for his headache condition. In May 2018, the Veteran’s representative also stated that the Veteran’s bilateral eye condition was appropriately rated. Throughout all of this contact and throughout the Veteran’s treatment records, the Veteran does not describe, complain, or seek treatment for symptoms of a left eye condition. Under these circumstances, and for the reasons described, the Board finds that service connection for a left eye condition cannot be granted. REASONS FOR REMAND 1. Entitlement to service connection for a headache condition, to include as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected right eye condition, is remanded. The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of entitlement to service connection for a headache condition because no VA examiner has opined whether his headache condition began in service, was related to an in-service injury, to include the injury that resulted in a foreign body in his right eye, or was caused or aggravated by his service-connected right eye condition. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for an examination by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of any headache condition. The examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the injury that resulted in his right eye condition. Alternatively, the examiner must opine whether it is at least as likely as not (1) proximately due to service-connected disability, or (2) aggravated beyond its natural progression by service-connected disability. (Continued on the next page)   The examiner’s attention is specifically called to the several instances where the Veteran sought treatment for headaches, and in particular the June 1995 service treatment record where the Veteran specifically sought treatment for a headache he believed was connected to his eye injury or condition. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Steven H. Johnston, Associate Counsel