Citation Nr: 21070330
Decision Date: 11/23/21	Archive Date: 11/23/21

DOCKET NO. 19-23 842
DATE: November 23, 2021

ORDER

Service connection for left eye blindness is denied. 

FINDING OF FACT

The preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the Veteran had total left eye blindness prior to enlistment to service and this disability was not incurred in or aggravated by his service. 

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for left eye blindness have not been 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 honorably served in the Army from June 1952 to June 1956. This matter is before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2018 rating decision. 

In August 2021 the Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) and a transcript is of record. 

The Board notes that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) were lost in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NRPC). All efforts to obtain or reconstruct them have been attempted by VA. See February 1999 NARC Informal Information Reply. In cases such as these, VA has a heightened duty to explain its findings and conclusions and to consider carefully the benefit-of-the-doubt rule. O'Hare v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 365, 367 (1991); Pruitt v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 83, 85 (1992). The case law does not lower the legal standard for proving a claim for service connection but rather increases the Board's obligation to evaluate and discuss in its decision all the evidence that may be favorable to the Veteran. Russo v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 46 (1996). Moreover, there is no presumption, either in favor of the claimant or against VA, arising from missing records. Cromer v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 215, 217-18 (2005). The Board's analysis of this Veteran's claim is undertaken with this duty in mind.

Service connection for left eye blindness

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active military, naval, or air service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (a). Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (d).

Under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (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, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).

Factual Background & Analysis 

The Veteran has claimed for service connection for left eye blindness. Pertinent to this claim is the Veteran's August 2021 hearing testimony. The Veteran stated that he was completely blind in his left eye prior to his enlistment into active-duty service following an injury during his early teenage years. The Veteran did not advance any arguments as to an in-service incurrence or aggravation of left eye blindness. There is otherwise no medical or lay evidence which tends to substantiate an in-service incurrence or aggravation of left eye blindness or a causal relationship between his service and his left eye blindness. Rather, the Veteran's hearing testimony unambiguously confirms that the Veteran was completely blind in his left eye prior to his enlistment into service. Consequently, although the medical evidence reflects a current disability of left eye blindness, the other two Shedden elements required to establish service connection have not been demonstrated by the evidence of record. 

(Continued on the next page)

 

The Board observes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination in connection with this service connection claim. As stated, there is no evidence tending to substantiate the in-service incurrence or causal relationship (nexus) elements. As such, VA's duty to provide an examination has not been triggered, the Board finds that obtaining a nexus opinion is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006).

Because the preponderance of the evidence weighs against this claim, the benefit-of-the-doubt is inapplicable, and the claim is denied. See Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990).

 

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	

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.