Citation Nr: 20037542 Decision Date: 06/02/20 Archive Date: 06/02/20 DOCKET NO. 18-46 402 DATE: June 2, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability, diagnosed as retinal detachment, cataract, and epiretinal membrane, is granted. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a concussion, diagnosed as vertigo, is granted. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran’s right eye disability, to include retinal detachment, cataract, and epiretinal membrane, is related to a grenade training incident in service. 2. The Veteran’s residuals of a concussion, diagnosed as vertigo, is related to a grenade training incident in service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. The criteria for service connection for right eye retinal detachment, cataract, and epiretinal membrane are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. 2. The criteria for service connection for recurrent vertigo are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran had active service in the Army National Guard from April 1961 to September 1961 and additional periods of service in the California National Guard. In March 2020, the Veteran testified at a videoconference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing has been reviewed. Service Connection Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship, i.e., a nexus, between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the current disability. Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1362, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), if a chronic disease or injury is shown in service, and subsequent manifestations of the same chronic disease or injury at any later date, however remote, are shown, unless clearly attributable to intercurrent causes. For a showing of a chronic disorder in service, the mere use of the word chronic will not suffice; rather, there is a required combination of manifestations sufficient to identify the disease entity, and sufficient observation to establish chronicity at the time. Service connection may also be established under 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b), where a condition in service is noted but is not, in fact, chronic, or where a diagnosis of chronicity may be legitimately questioned. The continuity of symptomatology provision of 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) has been interpreted as an alternative to service connection only for the specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a). See Walker v. Shinseki, 718 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Organic disease of the nervous system is listed as a "chronic disease" under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a); therefore, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (b) applies to the claim for service connection for residuals of a concussion. It does not apply to the claim for service connection for a right eye disability. Service connection may also be established with certain chronic diseases, including organic diseases of the nervous system, based upon a legal presumption by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent disabling or more within one year from the date of separation from service. Such disease shall be presumed to have been incurred in service, even though there is no evidence of such disease during the period of service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a). The one-year presumption applies to the claims for service connection for residuals of concussion. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disability The Veteran contends that he sustained an injury of his right eye during service, which caused his current right eye disabilities. The Veteran contends that he was injured during officer candidate school (OCS) at Fort Benning. The Veteran described the incident in a March 2020 statement. The Veteran indicated that he was involved in a training exercise with a grenade which required him to enter a pit to throw a grenade. The Veteran indicated that one of the candidates rolled a live grenade back into the pit. The Veteran walked over to the live grenade, picked it up, and tried to clear the wall before it exploded. Treatment records dated in March 2020 reflect current diagnoses of retinal detachment, cataract, and epiretinal membrane (macular pucker). An August 2018 statement from a private physician reflects that the Veteran reported double vision while driving. This was not expected to improve significantly, even with surgery. Although service treatment records do not document the reported incident or an eye injury, the Board cannot determine that lay evidence lacks credibility merely because it is unaccompanied by contemporaneous medical evidence. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). A veteran is competent to report what occurred in service because testimony regarding first-hand knowledge of a factual matter is competent, such as an injury or incident in service. Washington v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 363 (2005). The Veteran is competent to report the incident, and the Board finds his testimony credible. The Court has held that the competency and credibility of his lay statements must be considered. The next issue for consideration is whether there is a medical nexus between his current disabilities and his service injury. A March 2020 medical opinion from a private ophthalmologist noted that the Veteran had multiple eye surgeries for retinal detachment, cataract, and epiretinal membrane (macular pucker). The opinion noted that the Veteran’s account of his military service was reviewed. The physician opined that a blunt trauma from the grenade blast could have accelerated posterior vitreous detachment followed days to years later by retinal detachment and epiretinal membrane formation. It was further noted that the Veteran currently has decreased vision and an inability to drive at night due to his epiretinal membrane (macular pucker). The physician opined that it is more likely than not that his retina conditions began during service. The Board finds that the requirements for service connection have been met. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of right eye retinal detachment, cataract, and epiretinal membrane of the right eye. He had an in-service injury when he injured his eye while training with a grenade. There is competent medical evidence linking his right eye disability to service. There are no contrary medical opinions. Given the foregoing, service connection for a right eye disability is warranted. 2. Entitlement to service connection for residuals of a concussion The Veteran contends that he sustained a head injury in the aforementioned grenade accident during officer training school. He contends that he has residuals of vertigo which are related to the accident. In a March 2020 statement, the Veteran noted that the grenade exploded in front of him, knocking him out. When he came to, he was groggy, and the commanding officer was standing over him. The Veteran stated that he sat against a tree for 30 minutes and then went to the barracks for three days of bed rest. A January 2020 medical opinion from a private doctor, Dr. R.V., reflects a current diagnosis of vertigo. Dr. R.V. stated that the Veteran is known to have had significant trauma with explosions during military service. He has periodic severe vertigo, which can be stimulated by head trauma, whether it is a frank head impact or acoustic trauma such as the sound of an explosion. Dr. R.V. reported that the Veteran has problems with periodic severe vertigo. Dr. R.V. opined that there is “no doubt that such exposure during his military service has contributed to [the Veteran’s] problem with recurrent vertigo at this time.” The Board finds that the requirements for service connection for recurrent vertigo have been met. The Veteran has a current diagnosis of recurrent vertigo, which is related to competent medical opinion evidence to an in-service injury during training. There are no contrary medical opinions. Given the foregoing, service connection for recurrent vertigo is warranted. JENNIFER HWA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Catherine Cykowski 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.