Citation Nr: 21076958 Decision Date: 12/28/21 Archive Date: 12/28/21 DOCKET NO. 17-65 499 DATE: December 28, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from August 1989 to August 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from an April 2016 rating decision issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Decatur, Georgia, which denied service connection for a bilateral eye disability. In August 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability is remanded. The Veteran contends that his bilateral eye disability is related to his active duty. Specifically, he contends that his eyes were injured by blowing sand during combat operations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. See August 2021 Transcript of Hearing, pages 3-5. In a September 2016 private medical opinion, Dr. R.B., inter alia, noted that the Veteran experienced corneal sub-epithelial opacities or haze and opined the following: Corneal sub-epithelial opacities or haze is a process of scarring secondary to previous insult to the cornea. Corneal sub-epithelial opacities can be caused by previous eye surgeries (PRK or LASIK), viral and or bacterial infections, contact lens wear, trauma, dry eye disease, inherited dystrophies, etc. Based on [the Veteran's] prior history of serving in the armed forces and being in a desert-type environment, it is possible the corneal sub-epithelial haze could have developed from dry eye disease, ultraviolet keratopathy, and/or foreign body irritation from sand and/or dust that the patient was in contact. By no means, am I stating that the corneal sub-epithelial haze is directly associated with [the Veteran's] active duty overseas, but there is a possibility that the condition could have developed there. The Board finds that although the September 2016 medical opinion of Dr. R.B. raises an indication that the Veteran has a bilateral eye disability which is related to service, the opinion is inadequate to support a grant of benefits sought, as the opinion is speculative and inconclusive. Additionally, the Board notes that the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination for his bilateral eye disability. The VA has a duty to assist the Veteran in obtaining a medical examination or opinion in certain circumstances. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). A VA examination must be obtained in a disability compensation claim if there is competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; establishment of an in-service event, injury, or disease; an indication that the current disability may be associated with an in-service event; and insufficient competent medical evidence to make a decision on the claim. McClendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81-6 (2006). Because the Board cannot make a fully informed decision on the issue of the Veteran's bilateral eye disability without an examination, the Board concludes that a VA examination is warranted. Accordingly, the matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Afford the Veteran a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any current bilateral eye disability. Access to the Veteran's electronic VA claims file should be made available to the examiner to review in connection with the examination. After examining the Veteran and reviewing the record, the examiner should identify all current bilateral eye pathology and symptomatology, if any. Then, he or she should provide an opinion, with supporting rationale, as to the following: (Continued on the next page) Is it at least as likely as not that any current bilateral eye disability had its inception during the Veteran's period of active duty or is otherwise causally related to an in-service disease or injury, to include blowing sand during combat operations in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? A complete explanation must be provided for any opinion offered. In providing the requested opinion, the examiner should reference any relevant evidence of record, to include the September 2016 private medical opinion from Dr. R.B., as well as the Veteran's August 2021 hearing testimony. K. Conner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Ruddy, 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.