Citation Nr: 21062481 Decision Date: 10/07/21 Archive Date: 10/07/21 DOCKET NO. 16-18 549 DATE: October 7, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to a compensable rating for chronic allergic blepharoconjunctivitis, chronic episcleritis, and premature cataract formation is remanded. Entitlement to a total rating based on individual unemployability due to service connected disability (TDIU) prior to March 1, 2015 is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Marine Corps from October 1965 to October 1968, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. These matters come to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2013 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) St. Petersburg, Florida. Jurisdiction of this appeal is currently with the RO in Phoenix, Arizona. This case was most recently before the Board in January 2019, at which time the appeal was remanded to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) for further development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate action. In addition, in a May 2021 rating decision, the AOJ granted entitlement to a TDIU beginning March 1, 2015. As this was not a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal, the claim remains on appeal and has been recharacterized as shown on the cover page of this decision. AB v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 35 (1993). 1. Increased Rating Chronic Allergic Blepharoconjunctivitis The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in January 2012. Visual field defect testing at the January 2012 VA examination showed that the Veteran did not have a visual field defect and had visual field full to finger counting. Goldmann's equivalent III/4e target testing was performed. The Goldmann charts were not associated with the claims file. Under the regulations in effect prior to May 13, 2018, which are applicable in this case, the results of visual field testing must be recorded on a standard Goldmann chart and the chart must be included with the examination report. See 38 C.F.R. § 4.77. Therefore, a remand is warranted to obtain and associate such Goldmann chart. 2. Entitlement to a TDIU Regarding the TDIU issue, the Board notes that the issue of entitlement to a TDIU is inextricably intertwined with the claim remanded herein. Harris v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991). Hence, a determination on the claim for TDIU should be deferred pending final disposition of the claim of entitlement to a compensable rating for an eye disorder. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Veteran should be given the opportunity to identify any outstanding private or VA treatment records relevant to the claims on appeal. After obtaining any necessary authorization from the Veteran, all outstanding records should be obtained, to include updated VA treatment records. For private treatment records, make at least two (2) attempts to obtain records from any identified sources. If any such records are unavailable, inform the Veteran and his representative and afford him an opportunity to submit any copies in his possession. For federal records, all reasonable attempts should be made to obtain such records. If any records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). 2. Obtain and associate with the claims file the clinical and diagnostic tests referenced in the January 2012 VA eye examination report. (Continued on the next page) If such records cannot be obtained after reasonable efforts have been made, issue a formal determination that such records do not exist or that further efforts to obtain such records would be futile, which should be documented in the claims file. The Veteran must be notified of the attempts made and why further attempts would be futile, and allowed the opportunity to provide such records, as provided in 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(b)(2) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(e). KRISTY L. ZADORA Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mariah N. Sim, 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.