Citation Nr: 21071409 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 17-50 704 DATE: November 30, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for scratched cornea of the right eye is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has any residual disability related to the in-service scratched cornea. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for scratched cornea of the right eye 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 served on active duty from July 1988 to December 1991 and from September 1998 to February 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a September 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The case was last before the Board in July 2020 and has returned to the Board for further appellate review. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a right eye disorder Service connection may be established for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Generally, to prove service connection there must be: (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The Veteran seeks service connection for residuals of scratched right cornea that occurred during service. Service treatment records during the Veteran's first period of active duty service show the Veteran was found to have a probable corneal abrasion after he complained that it felt like something was in his right eye, along with burning and irritation. A subsequent treatment record reveals the Veteran reported that his right eye felt better, and his corneal abrasion was noted as resolved. Thereafter, the Veteran's November 1991 separation examination noted the Veteran's eyes to be within normal limits and the Veteran denied any eye trouble in his accompanying report of medical history. Service treatment records from the Veteran's second period of active duty do not reflect treatment or findings pertaining to the right eye, and the Veteran denied any eye disorder or trouble in his February 2012 report of medical history. Post-service treatment records note the Veteran reported a history of a scratched cornea; however, none of the records reflect residual eye disability related to the scratched cornea. The Veteran underwent a VA examination in November 2020, at which time the examiner indicated the Veteran had a current diagnosis of bilateral dry eye syndrome. The Veteran reported that he sustained a corneal abrasion in service after being struck in the eye during a fight. He also reported that he got ash and debris in his eyes in the Philippines that lead to irritation and dryness. The examiner indicated that although the Veteran had a history of a right eye corneal abrasion in 1989, the abrasion fully healed and there are no current symptoms or signs of long-term complications from the abrasion. As such, the examiner opined that the Veteran's claimed eye disorder was less likely than not incurred in or caused by service. Moreover, the examiner opined that there is no direct causal relationship between a history of a fully healed corneal abrasion and dry eye syndrome. The examiner explained that dry eye syndrome is the result of poor-quality tears or lack of tears on the front surface of the eye resulting in many symptoms. The risk factors for dry eye syndrome are age, medications (i.e., antihistamines), conditions (Sjogren's syndrome, vitamin a deficiency, diabetes, etc.), eye surgeries (i.e., LASIK), tear gland damage from radiation, environmental (wind, smoke, etc.), reduced blink rate (i.e., from computer work or conditions like Parkinson's), eyelid anatomy problems (entropion, ectropion, lagophthalmos), hormonal changes, poor diet, and contact lens wear. There is no competent and probative medical opinion indicating the Veteran has residuals from the scratched cornea of the right eye, nor any medical opinion linking any current right eye disability to his military service. To the extent the Veteran believes that his current right eye disorder is related to service, he has not been shown to have the specialized training sufficient to render such an opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (noting general competence to testify as to symptoms but not to provide medical diagnosis). In this regard, the diagnosis and etiology of eye conditions are matters not capable of lay observation and require medical expertise to determine. The Board finds the opinion of the VA examiner to be significantly more probative than the Veteran's lay assertions. To the extent the Veteran contends that he suffered from a right eye disability during service subsequent to the scratched cornea that has continued since service, the Board does not find such assertions to be persuasive. In this regard, the Veteran's November 1991 separation examination and May 1998 examination noted the Veteran's eyes to be within normal limits. Additionally, he had no complaints or treatment for his right eye during his second period of service. Moreover, he denied any eye trouble on his November 1991, May 1996, October 2001, December 2009, and February 2012 reports of medical history. Thus, his current reports of in-service eye complaints subsequent to the acute scratched cornea is inconsistent with the service treatment records and is not probative. See AZ v. Shinseki, 731 F.3d 1303, 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (recognizing the widely held view that the absence of an entry in a record may be considered evidence that the fact did not occur if it appears that the fact would have been recorded if present); see also Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1336-1337 (2006) (the lack of contemporaneous medical records, the significant time delay between the affiants' observations and the date on which the statements were written, and conflicting statements of the veteran are factors that the Board can consider and weigh against a veteran's lay evidence). In sum, the preponderance of evidence is against the claim for service connection for a scratched cornea of the right eye, and the appeal is denied. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit of the doubt doctrine. However, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, the doctrine does not apply. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; see also Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 55-57 (1990). K. A. BANFIELD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Lance, 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.