Citation Nr: 21076565 Decision Date: 12/27/21 Archive Date: 12/27/21 DOCKET NO. 18-40 276 DATE: December 27, 2021 ORDER Service connection for bilateral eye disability, to include glaucoma and dry eye, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that bilateral eye disability, to include glaucoma and dry eye, began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for eye disability, to include glaucoma and dry eye, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from October 1954 to October 1957. This issue is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2018 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). It is noted that in the August 2018 Form 9, the Veteran requested a hearing before the Board. Although the Board scheduled the Veteran for hearings in February 2020, May 2021, July 2021, and October 2021, the hearing was postponed or the Veteran did not show for the hearing date. Most recently, as to the hearing for July 2021, the Veteran did not present for the scheduled hearing, but then requested again to reschedule that hearing. Such was accomplished and she was rescheduled for an October 2021 Board hearing. The Veteran again did not present for the schedule hearing. To date, the Veteran has not requested rescheduling of that hearing or provided evidence of good cause for the failure to show for the scheduled hearing date. As such, the Veteran's hearing request is withdrawn. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). Entitlement to service connection for eye disability, to include glaucoma and dry eye. The Veteran contends that she has bilateral eye disability caused by her 4 years of service in the Air Force on planes with dry conditions, including in the plane cabins, with average time in the air with dry conditions from 25 to 28 hours one way. See NOD (June 2018). She stated that the dry conditions in the cabin were difficult on eyes and other body parts. Id. She expressed her belief that food, water and living quarters in some places and countries also caused her bilateral eye disability. Id. The Board concludes that, while the Veteran has been diagnosed with glaucoma in both eyes and has a history of pseudophakia, the preponderance of the evidence is against finding that she has a disability of either eye that began in service or is otherwise related to in-service injury or disease. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. Compensation may be awarded for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Service connection basically means that the facts, shown by evidence, establish that an injury or disease resulting in disability was incurred coincident with service in the Armed Forces, or if preexisting such service, was aggravated therein. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in- service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). Service connection is not generally available for refractive error of the eye as it is not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation providing compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c), 4.9. Refractive error of the eyes includes myopia, presbyopia, and astigmatism. Id. Further, absent aggravation or superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be allowed for a congenital or developmental defect of the eyes, even if visual acuity decreased in service, as this is not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation relating to service connection. Parker v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 522 (1991); McNeely v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 357, 364 (1992). See also 38 C.F.R. § 4.9; Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996). Service treatment records (STRs) reflect that at the time of enlistment into active duty in October 1954, the Veteran reported having worn glasses. See STR-Medical (March 2018). Her November 1954 enlistment physical shows abnormal distant vision in the left eye with manifested refraction. Id. An August 1955 examination conducted for purposes of the Veteran's assignment as a flight stewardess, her vision was found to be normal with bilateral near and distant vision at 20/20. Id. A September 1957 Report of Examination (ROME) at separation shows normal bilateral near and distant vision at 20/20. A September 1957 Report of Medical History (ROMH) reflect that the Veteran described her health as "excellent" and denied having or ever had "eye trouble." Abnormal pathology of the eye is first documented in April 2017, decades after service during private evaluation. See Medical Treatment Record - Non-Government Facility (March 2018). A December 2017 private treatment note shows treatment for glaucoma, including the Veteran's reports of difficulty seeing at night, when reading and driving at night. Id. VA received a claim for benefits in March 2018 for "glaucoma/dry eyes." See VA 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim (Compensation) (March 2018). Neither the lay nor the medical evidence reflects that the Veteran has a disability of either eye that began in service or is otherwise etiologically related to in-service injury or disease. The Veteran is competent to report her eye symptoms. Moreover, the Board accepts that lay persons are competent to report on their observations and first-hand knowledge that comes to them through their senses. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). However, the Board finds that the Veteran is not competent to link her current eye problems to service, to include dry conditions, food, water, or living quarters, as the etiology of her conditions is not susceptible to lay observation insofar as it was first shown decades after her active military service and because she lacks the requisite medical knowledge and training. Indeed, the etiology of her eye disorders, shown long after her military service, is a complex medical matter beyond the ken of lay persons and requires medical training and knowledge of the eye and its disease processes. Therefore, her opinion as to the cause of her condition has no probative value. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, to the extent that the Veteran suggests any in-service onset of symptoms, the Board finds that this is not credible in view of the absence of abnormal pathology of the eyes in service (other than refractive error), the normal eye findings on ROME at service separation, the Veteran's denial of eye trouble on her ROME at service separation, and the many years intervening the Veteran's military service and the first documented complaints/findings for abnormal eye pathology. Caluza, 7 Vet. App. at 511 The Board assigns greater probative value to the STRs, which show no abnormal eye pathology in service coupled with the Veteran's denial of eye trouble in service. See Curry v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 59, 68 (1994) (contemporaneous evidence has greater probative value than history as reported by the claimant). The Board also assigns greater probative value to the Veteran's denial of eye trouble in service coupled with the roughly 6 decades intervening her service and the first documented complaints and/or abnormal findings for the eye. Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331, 1337 (2006); see also Maxson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 453, 459 (1999), aff'd sub nom., Maxson v. Gober, 230 F.3d 1330, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (holding that the Board may take into consideration the passage of a lengthy period of time in which the Veteran did not complain of the disorder at issue); Forshey v. West, 12 Vet. App. 71, 74 (1998), aff'd sub nom., Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (finding that the definition of evidence encompasses "negative evidence" which tends to disprove the existence of an alleged fact). As indicated above, service connection is not generally permitted for refractive error of the eye as it is not a disease or injury within the meaning of applicable legislation providing compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9. However, service connection may be granted for disability due to aggravation of a congenital or developmental abnormality from superimposed disease or injury in service. See Carpenter v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 240, 245 (1995); VAOPGCPREC 82-90, 55 Fed. Reg. 45,711 (1990). Here, there is not competent evidence of that the Veteran's myopia was subject to superimposed disease or injury in service; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c). Thus, here, service connection for refractive error of the eye is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9. Although VA has not obtained a medical opinion in this matter, the Board finds that VA's duty to assist has not been triggered. In this regard, the Veteran's own general conclusory statement that her glaucoma and dry eyes are due to in-service dry conditions on planes, food, water, or living quarters, is insufficient. See Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278-79 (Fed. Cir. 2010). See also, McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 70 (2006); Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 512, 517 (2004) ("the record does not already contain evidence of an in-service event, injury, or disease"). On balance, the weight of the evidence is against the claim. Accordingly, the claim is denied. There is no doubt to resolve. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). C.A. SKOW Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board E. M. Pesin 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.