Citation Nr: 21075007 Decision Date: 12/17/21 Archive Date: 12/17/21 DOCKET NO. 18-26 694 DATE: December 17, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT An eye disorder was not incurred in service, is not etiologically related to service, and is not secondary to the service-connected diabetes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 1112; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from September 1962 to October 1970, including service in the Republic of Vietnam. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2017 rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a hearing held before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2020. This case was previously before the Board in March 2020 and in July 2021 when it was remanded for additional development. Service Connection Service connection may be established for 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. Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). A disability which is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a). Any increase in severity of a nonservice-connected disease or injury that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury, and not due to the natural progress of the nonservice-connected disease, will be service connected. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(b). Service treatment records reveal no abnormal findings or histories regarding the eyes, and the August 1970 separation examination reveals normal clinical findings and visual acuity. A December 1976 examination record reports that the eyes were within normal limits. A September 2011 VA treat ment record reveals the Veteran's history of some visual blurring. A December 2011 VA ophthalmology record reveals diagnosis of diabetes mellitus without diabetic retinopathy and bilateral cataract. VA medical records indicate that the Veteran underwent surgical treatment for left eye cataract in October 2019 and right eye cataract in February 2020. The records also reveal diagnosis of dry eye syndrome. A September 2020 VA "diabetes mellitus" examination record reports that the Veteran did not have diabetic retinopathy. A February 2021 VA examination record reveals diagnosis of pseudophakia. The examiner determined that it was less likely than not that the Veteran had an ocular disorder that was incurred in or related to service or was secondary to the service-connected diabetes mellitus type 2. The examiner explained that the Veteran had no current ocular abnormality, status-post cataract surgery, and that the Veteran was pseudophakic with excellent bilateral visual acuity. A July 2021 VA medical opinion reveals the determination that it was less likely than not that the cataracts were incurred in or caused by service or caused or aggravated by the service-connected diabetes. The opinion notes that the cataracts were observed around 2011 with normal age-related presentation for age 62 and that the Veteran did not undergo surgical correction until 2019. The opinion explains that the cataracts did not have a sudden onset or dense posterior capsular presentation as would indicate diabetic involvement. The examiner added that based on the normal timeline of cataract formation and maturing consistent with normal age-related changes and lack of indication of diabetes involvement, it was less likely that the pseudophakia was secondary to diabetes or other known herbicide exposure. Another July 2021 VA medical opinion reveals the determination that the Veteran's dry eye condition was not incurred in or related to service and was not secondary to service-connected diabetes. The opinion explains that dry eye syndrome was not documented, and symptoms did not occur, until significantly after medical service in approximately 2019, and that dry eye syndrome is a common age-related change. The Board finds service connection is not warranted for an eye disorder, diagnosed as cataract, status-post intraocular implant, or dry eye syndrome. Specifically, the Board finds that the evidence shows that a current eye disorder was not present until years after the Veteran's discharge from service, is not etiologically related to service, and is not secondary to the service-connected diabetes. Service treatment and examination records reveal no history of an eye disorder, the conditions are not presumptively linked to herbicide exposure, and VA medical professionals have provided probative opinions that the eye disorders are consistent with aging and are not likely related to service or caused or aggravated by the service-connected diabetes. The record is absent any contrary medical evidence. Accordingly, the claim must be denied. In reaching this decision, the Board has considered the doctrine of reasonable doubt but has determined that it is not applicable because the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim. STEVEN D. REISS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Snyder, 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.