Citation Nr: 21064252 Decision Date: 10/19/21 Archive Date: 10/19/21 DOCKET NO. 16-27 481A DATE: October 19, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The weight of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has an eye disability that is related to active service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eye disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2018); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 4.9 (2020). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1971 to March 1975. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2015 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). This case was previously before the Board in May 2021, at which time the issues currently before the Board were remanded for additional development. The case has now been returned to the Board for appellate review. The issues of entitlement to service connection for a right knee disability, entitlement to service connection for a left knee disability, and entitlement to service connection for a right ankle disability were also remanded by the Board in May 2021. However, in a July 2021 rating decision, the Veteran was granted entitlement to service connection for his right knee, left knee, and right ankle disabilities. There is no indication from the record that the Veteran has disagreed with the ratings or effective dates assigned in that decision. Therefore, that decision constitutes a full grant of the benefit sought on appeal and the Board has limited its consideration accordingly. Service Connection Eye Disability The Veteran asserts that he has an eye disability that is related to his active service. Service treatment records (STRs) show that the Veteran reported getting battery acid in his eyes in December 1973. His eyes were irrigated and three days later he had no eye complaints. At his February 1975 separation physical, he had a normal examination of his eyes. He retained 20/20 vision and did not report any eye symptoms. The Veteran's STRs from his reserve service show that in November 1975, he continued to have normal eyes and 20/20 vision on examination. Post-service evidence of record shows that the Veteran was diagnosed with glaucoma in 2008. At a November 2017 VA examination, the Veteran reported that a car battery blew up in his face during his service. He noted that he had metal in his eyes following that incident. After examination, the diagnosed the Veteran with cataracts, hypermetropia, astigmatism, presbyopia, dry eye syndrome, minor opacity of the right eye cornea, and pinguecula. Initially, the Board notes that the Veteran's presbyopia, hyperopia and astigmatism are considered refractive errors. Refractive errors of the eyes are congenital or developmental defects and not disease or injury for VA compensation purposes. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9. Service connection is only possible in such cases when there is evidence of additional disability due to aggravation during service of the congenital defect by superimposed disease or injury. See Monroe v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 513, 514-15 (1993); Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 240, 245 (1995). In other words, absent a superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be granted for refractive error of the eyes, including hyperopia, astigmatism, and presbyopia, even if visual acuity decreased in service. At an August 2021 VA examination, the examiner opined that the Veteran's eye conditions were less likely than not incurred in or caused by active service, to include in December 1973 battery acid injury. As rationale, the examiner noted that the Veteran's dry eye syndrome had resolved and pinguecula is an ocular diagnosis that is not consistent with an injury to the eye. With regard to reconciling the current diagnosis of minor opacity of the cornea of the right eye, with the negative medical nexus statement from the November 2017 VA examination, based in part, on the conclusion that the Veteran did not experience opacification of the cornea, the examiner noted that the Veteran's glaucoma is currently mild and would be worse if it was due to the in-service battery incident. The Board finds that the August 2021 VA medical opinion is adequate because the examiner thoroughly reviewed the claims file and discussed the relevant evidence, considered the contentions of the Veteran, and provided a thorough supporting rationale for the conclusions reached. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303 (2007); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120 (2007); Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295 (2008). Further, there is no medical opinion of record to the contrary. As such, the VA medical opinion of record is the most probative evidence of record. While laypeople are competent to report observable symptoms of an eye disability, the Veteran is not competent to provide a current diagnosis of an eye disability as that requires medical expertise and is outside the realm of common knowledge of a layperson. Kahana v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 428 (2011); Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Therefore, the Veteran is not competent to provide a current diagnosis of an eye disability, or an etiology opinion in this case. A review of the record does not show that the Veteran had cataracts that were present to a compensable degree within a year of his separation from active service. As such, presumptive service connection is not applicable in this case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (a) (2019). Accordingly, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim and entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is not warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b) (2018); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). ERIC S. LEBOFF Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board I. Umez-Eronini, Associate 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.