Citation Nr: 21061540 Decision Date: 10/04/21 Archive Date: 10/04/21 DOCKET NO. 17-06 653 DATE: October 4, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a left eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against a finding that the Veteran's left eye disability is etiologically related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left eye disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active service from July 1971 to August 1974. The Veteran requested, and was scheduled for, a hearing with the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on August 11, 2021. However, he did not request postponement of the hearing, did not appear for the scheduled hearing, and did not request for the hearing to be rescheduled. As such, his hearing request is deemed withdrawn, and the case may be adjudicated by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) 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). As an initial matter, the Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for his left eye disability. However, the Board finds that such an examination is not required in this case. In deciding whether the duty to assist requires that a VA medical examination be provided or that a medical opinion be obtained with respect to a veteran's claim for benefits, there are four factors for consideration(1) whether there is competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) whether there is evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or evidence establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumption period; (3) whether there is an indication that the disability or symptoms may be associated with a veteran's service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) whether there is otherwise sufficient competent medical to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006); 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). Here, as discussed in further detail below, the evidence does not support a finding that the Veteran sustained an injury to his left eye in service. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that VA is not required to provide a medical examination when there is not credible evidence of an event, injury, or disease in service. Bardwell v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 36 (2010). Likewise, there is no suggestion from any competent source to suggest that his left eye disability may have begun during, or been otherwise caused by, his military service. Thus, a VA examination and/or opinion is not necessary to decide this claim. Turning to the merits of this service connection claim, VA treatment records provide a diagnosis of a left eye pterygium, and, thus, the present disability prong of this issue has been met. However, this is the only prong of service connection which has been met for the Veteran's left eye disability claim. As to the in-service injury prong of this issue, the Veteran submitted a written statement with his February 2017 formal appeal to the Board, wherein he wrote that, while stationed aboard a ship ported in Norfolk, Virginia, in service in 1971, he was in a chalk wheel grinding a needle gun when something flew up and hit him in the eye. He further wrote that he reported to sick call two or three times regarding this eye injury, but that nothing was ever found in his eye. He also noted in his February 2017 statement that he was in the process of trying to obtain witness statements from fellow service-members who could corroborate his in service injury and that he had sought medical attention in service for his eye, but that no such statements were ever submitted. In this case, the medical evidence of record goes against a finding that the Veteran experienced an in-service injury to his left eye. The Veteran's service treatment records are silent as to any complaints relating to, or treatment received for, his left eye. Further, the first reported medical treatment regarding this claimed disability occurred in 2002, nearly thirty years after he had separated from service. The Veteran's STRs appear to be complete and show that he treated regularly in service for a variety of ailments, including a right eye sty; a right ear laceration; numerous colds; a painful foot callous; various skin rashes; various genitourinary conditions; a left hand injury; headaches; and a swollen lip. Thus, these treatment records tend to suggest that the Veteran was somewhat diligent in reporting non-emergency medical conditions, but did not, at any time in service, report any injuries or symptoms relating to his left eye. As such, his lay reports of having injured his left eye in service are contradicted by the competent and credible medical evidence of record, and the weight of the evidence does not support a finding that such an injury in service occurred. Lacking an in-service injury to which his current left eye disability could be medically related, service connection cannot be established. In addition, there is no medical evidence suggesting that the Veteran's left eye pterygium could be related to any incident of service. The Veteran has not identified any other records which could possibly show such a relationship, nor has he stated that any medical provider ever told him that such a relationship was possible. As such, there is also no evidence tending to link the Veteran's left eye disability to service. In light of the above, the weight of the competent evidence of record goes against a finding that the Veteran's left eye was injured in service or that his current left eye disability is medically related to any incident of service. The elements of service connection for the Veteran's left eye disability are not met, and service connection for a left eye disability is not warranted. In reaching this determination, the Board is mindful that all reasonable doubt is to be resolved in the Veteran's favor. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). However, because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the appeal must be denied. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Davidoski, Counsel 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.