Citation Nr: 20005930 Decision Date: 01/23/20 Archive Date: 03/05/20 DOCKET NO. 18-30 828 DATE: January 23, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for eye condition, to include macular degeneration, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran’s eye condition, to include macular degeneration, began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eye condition, to include macular degeneration, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from October 1952 to October 1954. In January 2019, the Veteran testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record. In July 2019, the Board remanded the claim on appeal, and a claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder, to obtain VA medical opinions. The claim of service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder was granted by an October 2019 rating decision, and that matter is no longer before the Board. Regarding the claim of service connection for an eye condition, there has been substantial compliance with the remand directive, and the appeal is again before the Board. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); Dyment v. West, 13 Vet. App. 141, 146-47 (1999). Service Connection Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). To establish service connection for a current disability, a Veteran must show: the existence of a present disability; in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Entitlement to service connection for eye condition, to include macular degeneration The Veteran contends that he suffers from an eye condition, diagnosed as macular degeneration, caused by exposure to radiation from nuclear weapon testing during the Veteran’s service in the Marshall Islands. The Veteran’s service personnel records show that he served as part of Operation Castle, a series of nuclear weapon tests in the Marshall Islands. The Veteran has already been awarded service connection for hair loss due to exposure to ionizing radiation. Therefore, the in-service event of exposure to ionizing radiation has been established. The Veteran’s service treatment records do not contain complaints of, or treatment for, an eye condition. At the Veteran’s October 1954 separation examination, ophthalmoscopic, pupil, and ocular motility findings were normal. Since service, the Veteran has sought treatment for an eye condition since 2013, and was diagnosed with nonexudative macular degeneration in 2018. Therefore, the record establishes that the Veteran has a current eye disability. The question before the Board is whether the Veteran’s current eye condition is related to his exposure to radiation during active duty. In July 2019, the Board remanded the appeal for a medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran’s current eye condition is related to his active duty service. Pursuant to the Board remand, the Veteran was provided with a VA eye examination in August 2019. The examiner reviewed the Veteran’s VA e-folder and conducted an in-personal examination. The examiner found nothing in the Veteran’s ocular examination that could be caused by his time in service. The examiner found that the Veteran’s eye conditions are normal age-related eye conditions that would not be associated with exposure to radiation or his time in the service. The examiner therefore concluded that the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The examiner reviewed the Veteran’s claims file and examined the Veteran in arriving at this conclusion. The examiner considered all pertinent and available medical facts to which the Veteran is entitled in forming his opinion. Jones v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 382, 390 (2010). Therefore, the Board places high probative weight on the August 2019 VA medical opinion. The Board has considered the Veteran’s statements that his in-service exposure to radiation caused his eye condition. The Veteran is competent to provide testimony concerning factual matters of which he has first-hand knowledge (i.e., experiencing symptoms either in service or after service). See, e.g., Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 362 (2005). However, as a layperson without the appropriate medical training and expertise, the Veteran is simply not competent to provide a probative opinion on a complex medical matter, such as an etiological relationship between any current disability and military service or a service-connected disability. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The Veteran has not submitted medical literature or statements from an appropriate clinician which support a finding that his current eye condition is related to in-service exposure to radiation. In sum, the competent evidence of record weighs against the Veteran’s assertion that his current eye condition, including macular degeneration, is etiologically related to his active service, including exposure to radiation. Although grateful for the Veteran’s honorable service, the Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection and the benefit of the doubt rule does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-56 (1990). JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Casey The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.