Citation Nr: 21070761 Decision Date: 11/26/21 Archive Date: 11/26/21 DOCKET NO. 16-23 865 DATE: November 26, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral eye damage is granted. FINDING OF FACT The probative evidence of record is at least in equipoise as to whether the Veteran's bilateral eye damage is a result of service or etiologically related to active duty service. CONCLUSION OF LAW With resolution of reasonable doubt in the Veteran's favor, the criteria for a grant of service connection for bilateral eye damage have been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1131, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303, 3.304 (2021). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Air Force from June 1981 to June 1985. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge during a July 2021 hearing and the transcript is of record. This matter is on appeal from an April 2014 rating decision. 1. Bilateral Eye Damage The Veteran contends that he has bilateral eye damage that was caused by an injury during his active duty service. Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The benefit of the doubt rule provides that a veteran will prevail in a case where the positive evidence is in a relative balance with the negative evidence. Therefore, the Veteran prevails in a claim when (1) the weight of the evidence supports the claim or (2) when the evidence is in equipoise. It is only when the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). In his September 2013 claim for service connection, the Veteran reports that his eyes were irritated during chemical warfare training in 1983, that he sought treatment at a military facility and then at a private facility, and that examination results at the private facility "showed streaks but no bleeding." He added that he was told at the time that "the vessels were activated beyond normal activity and as [he] aged, [his] eyes would get weaker." Private treatment records from April 1983 note the Veteran's report of worsening vision. The Veteran was afforded a VA examination in April 2014. The clinician noted that the Veteran had angioid streaks, "a degenerative condition, which did develop sub choropial neovascular membranes, with retinal leakage, leading to macular scarring with decreased vision." The clinician opined that it was not at least as likely as not that these streaks were related to active duty service, but the opinion focused on a nexus to reported allergic conjunctivitis during active duty service, which was not the Veteran's contention. Because this opinion does not address the Veteran's contentions regarding service connection, it is of limited probative value. The Veteran has submitted an April 2020 medical opinion by a private retina specialist who reports that the Veteran has been under his care "for approximately 30 years," that he "has bilateral angioid streaks with retinal neovascularization," and that he "most assuredly had angioid streaks when he was age 22." The Veteran was 22 from 1983 to 1984, during his active duty service. The VA clinician's opinion is unfavorable to the Veteran's claim but does not address the Veteran's contentions. The private treatment provider's opinion is favorable to the Veteran's claim but included no rationale. The evidence is in equipoise. In light of the totality of the circumstances, and after resolving all reasonable doubt in his favor, the evidence of record supports a finding that it is at least as likely as not that the Veteran's bilateral angioid streaks had their onset during his active duty service. Accordingly, the Board finds that granting service connection for bilateral eye damage is the decision that is the most consistent with VA's policy to administer the law under a broad and liberal interpretation consistent with the facts of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Ryan Frank, 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.