Citation Nr: 21071003 Decision Date: 11/29/21 Archive Date: 11/29/21 DOCKET NO. 17-44 677 DATE: November 29, 2021 ORDER Service connection for a right eye disability is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran's right eye disability began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a right eye disability are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1993 to November 1996 and from May 1998 to May 2002. The Veteran and his wife testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge at a hearing in April 2021; a copy of the transcript is of record. In June 2021, the Board issued a decision and remanded the claims for right eye disability, left ear hearing loss, and tinnitus. The claims for left ear hearing loss and tinnitus were granted service connection and are no longer before the Board. As for the claim for a right eye disability, the Veteran claims that he should be entitled to service connection because elective surgery, which he received in service, did not permanently fix a pre-existing right eye disability and as a result, his right eye can lack focus, hurts, and experiences small angle esotropia. The Veteran added that pain is worse when he is fatigued. The record shows that the Veteran had right eye strabismus and mild amblyopia prior to his entry into service. See July 1992 enlistment examination. While in-service, the Veteran underwent an elective (ameliorative) eye surgery to correct his strabismus. See March 2000 STRs. After his surgery, the Veteran began experiencing right eye pain. See April 2021 hearing testimony. The usual effects of medical and surgical treatment in service, having the effect of ameliorating disease or other conditions incurred before enlistment, including postoperative scars, absent or poorly functioning parts or organs, will not be considered service connected unless the disease or injury is otherwise aggravated by service. 38C.F.R. §3.306(b)(1). This governing regulation precludes the grant of service connection for the usual effects of ameliorative surgical treatment. A June 2014 VA examination found that the Veteran's March 2000 eye surgery was an ameliorative surgical treatment. The July 2021 VA examiner stated that the Veteran's surgery was not completely successful and that pain and lack of permanency of the correction are not unusual. The Veteran asserts that the first VA examination was insufficient because it occurred so quickly, and he was not properly examined. The Board takes stock in the Veteran claims, but finds that the 2014 examiner is able to render an opinion on the purpose of a particular surgery without conducting a thorough examination. That being said, the examiner completed the evaluation as demonstrated by the completion of the Disability Benefits Questionnaire. However, as mentioned in the June 2021 decision, the 2014 examiner failed to discuss whether pain is a usual effect of the surgery. Thus, the opinion, while valid, is incomplete. Nevertheless, the July 2021 examination is valid and completely accounts for the symptoms experienced by the Veteran. The Veteran also contends that he should be provided with service connection because he was unaware that the surgery might not be successful and was not told of the side effects of the surgery. He stated that had he known of the side effects, he might not of had the surgery. A lack of knowledge of potential side effects combined with a lack of knowing whether or not such knowledge would have dissuaded him from surgery is insufficient to raise an entitlement to service connection. In reaching this decision the Board considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt, however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran's claim, the doctrine is not for application. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). JOHN Z. JONES Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board P. Chalker, 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.