Citation Nr: 21009579 Decision Date: 02/22/21 Archive Date: 02/22/21 DOCKET NO. 15-14 812 DATE: February 22, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a chronic right eye disability (iritis) is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran’s current right eye conditions began during active service or are otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a right eye disability are not 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 September 1975 to February 1979. In July 2018 and May 2020, the Board remanded this claim for additional development. The Veteran contends his current right eye disorders resulted from an in-service injury to his right eye. Service connection may be granted for disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (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 has current diagnoses of bilateral pinguecula, bilateral cortical cataract, and bilateral retinopathy, and the Veteran’s service treatment records show the Veteran suffered a right eye injury in September 1976. But the Board finds the preponderance of the evidence weighs against finding that the Veteran’s current diagnoses began during service or are otherwise related to his in-service injury. The Veteran’s VA treatment records indicate he did not receive any treatment related to his eyes until March 2011, when he complained of difficulty seeing, decades after his separation from service. A January 1992 VA examination, unrelated to the claim at hand, was negative for any eye disability. In a February 2013 and March 2013 clarifying opinion, a VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s had diagnoses of cataract and retinopathy that were less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including the injury to the Veteran’s right eye in September 1976. The examiner explained that the in-service traumatic iritis was a limited condition that resolved without any residuals or complication and none of the Veteran’s current conditions were progressed, caused by, aggravated by, or were otherwise related to the in-service trauma. A March 2019 VA examiner reported diagnoses of bilateral pinguecula and bilateral cortical cataract and opined that these conditions were less likely than not related to his in-service eye trauma. The examiner explained the Veteran’s in-service traumatic iritis resolved with treatment and without residuals. The examiner further opined that the Veteran’s other eye conditions were related to his age, diet, lifestyle, or are neurological and not related to his military service. Taken together, the several VA opinions of record establish that the Veteran’s current right eye diagnoses are less likely than not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, including a September 1976 trauma to his right eye. The VA examiners’ opinions are probative because they are based on an accurate medical history and provide an explanation that contains clear conclusions and supporting data. Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008). The Veteran believes his current right eye disorders are related to an in-service injury, event, or disease, specifically the trauma to his right eye in September 1976. But he has not been shown to be competent to provide a nexus opinion regarding this issue. The issue is medically complex and requires knowledge of the pathology of several eye disorders and the relationship between those disorders and distant trauma. Therefore, it is outside the competence of the Veteran because the record does not show that he has the medical training or credentials to make such a determination. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007); see also Kahana v. Shinseki, 24. Vet. App. 428 (2011). Consequently, the Board gives more probative weight to the VA opinions. Upon careful review and weighing of the evidence, with reasoning as detailed above, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for a right eye disability and the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application. See generally Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990); Ortiz v. Principi, 274 F.3d 1361 (Fed Cir. 2001). The appeal must therefore be denied. DONNIE R. HACHEY Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board E. Mine 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.