Citation Nr: 21011357 Decision Date: 03/01/21 Archive Date: 03/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-34 757A DATE: March 1, 2021 REMANDED Service connection for bilateral vision loss.   REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from July 1988 to August 1992. The claim is on appeal from a July 2011 rating decision. In March 2019, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing. In July 2019, the Board remanded the issues of service connection for bilateral hearing loss, a back disorder, and a bilateral vision disorder, for additional development. By rating decision in July 2020 service connection was granted for bilateral hearing loss and a back disorder. This represents a full grant of the benefits sought with respect to those issues. Service connection for bilateral vision loss. Pursuant to the Board’s July 2019 remand, the Veteran was to be scheduled for VA examination with respect to vision loss. The record indicates that the Veteran was scheduled for an examination, apparently in December 2019, but that he failed to report to the examination. See December 2019 Exam Request. Thereafter, the Veteran’s representative indicated that the Veteran did not fail to report to the examination but did not receive notification/information with respect to the date and time of the scheduled examination. See February 2021 Appellate Brief. The Board notes that although correspondence sent to the Veteran at his address of record in December 2019 informed him that a private facility would soon advise him of the date, time, and place of his upcoming examination, see Subsequent Development Letter, a notice of such with respect to vision loss is not associated with the claims file. Further, in view of the Veteran’s change of address on December 27, 2019, see VBMS Notes, and the fact that the Veteran attended VA examinations in December 2019 in association with other claims, see February 2020 Web/HTML Documents; February 2020 VA examinations, the Board finds there is sufficient ambiguity in the record surrounding whether the Veteran was adequately notified of the December 2019 VA vision examination. See Kyhn v. Shinseki, 716 F.3d 572, 577-78 (Fed. Cir. 2013). Thus, the Board finds that the Veteran should be afforded another opportunity to report for VA examination in connection with his service connection claim for bilateral vision loss. In view of the remand, VA treatment records since the issuance of the July 2020 VA supplemental statement of the case should be obtained. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Obtain VA treatment records since July 2020. 2. Schedule the Veteran for an examination (or telehealth interview, records request, etc. if an in-person examination is not feasible) by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of a bilateral eye/vision condition. The claims file must be made available to and reviewed by the clinician. Any indicated studies should be performed, and all findings should be reported in detail. The clinician should provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent or greater probability) that vision loss/eye disorder (other than refractive error) had its onset during or within the initial year after service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The examiner should also provide an opinion as to whether it is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that any identified vision loss/eye disorder is caused by, or aggravated by, service-connected posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), including due to any required medication for such. Aggravation is an increase in severity beyond the natural progress of the disease. In rendering the opinions, the evidence is to be considered, including the Veteran’s statements as to having been subjected to a blinding flash and gas that would burn his eyes when he operated M16 rifles without suppressors during service, as well blurred vision due to service-connected PTSD medications. See March 2019 Board hearing testimony. Rationale for all opinions expressed should be provided. If the clinician is unable to provide the requested opinions without resort to speculation, it must be so stated, and he or she must provide the reasons why an opinion would require speculation. RYAN T. KESSEL Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Taylor 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.