Citation Nr: 21074288
Decision Date: 12/14/21	Archive Date: 12/14/21

DOCKET NO. 19-04 906
DATE: December 14, 2021

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1971 to July 1973.

This case is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

In May 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing.  The transcript of the hearing has been associated with the record.  During the hearing the Veteran testified that his eye disorder commenced in service due to weapons firing and exposure to dust during deployment to Diego Garcia.  The Veteran further reported his eye disorder symptoms have continued since service without periods of improvement.

VA treatment records show continuous treatment for chronic eye dryness, with more recent treatment notes indicating glaucoma is suspected but not diagnosed.

The Board cannot make a fully-informed decision on the issue of service connection for an eye disorder because no VA examiner has opined whether the Veteran's current eye disorder is as likely as not the result of his in-service irritant exposure.  See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 83 (2006) (stating that "[t]his is a low threshold" for meeting the requirement to trigger VA's duty to assist in providing an examination).

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate clinician for his eye disorder.  The examiner must review the claims file.

If a diagnosis cannot be provided, but the Veteran's condition manifests in symptoms that cause functional impairment, then the examiner should consider them a "disability" for the purpose of providing the requested opinion(s) below.

The examiner should opine whether the Veteran's eye disorder is at least as likely as not related to service, including firing weapons and/or exposure to dust during deployment to Diego Garcia.

Provide a rationale to support the opinion(s).

 

 

R. FEINBERG

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Costa, Stephanie D.

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 This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.