Citation Nr: 21013112 Decision Date: 03/08/21 Archive Date: 03/08/21 DOCKET NO. 16-12 562 DATE: March 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an unspecified bilateral eye disability, to include refractive error, is denied. FINDING OF FACT Vision loss based on refractive error is not a disability for which service connection may be granted. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an unspecified bilateral eye disability have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 4.9. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the Army from August 1977 to August 1980. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2015 rating decision that denied the Veteran’s claim for service connection. The Veteran testified before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) in a June 2019 Board hearing. Due to audio recording errors, a transcript of the hearing was not made available to be associated with the Veteran’s claims file. In November 2020, a letter was sent to the Veteran providing him an opportunity to have an additional optional Board hearing and advising him that if he did not respond within 30 days, the Board would proceed under the assumption that the Veteran did not desire another hearing. No response from the Veteran was received. The Veteran has reported experiencing reduced vision with light sensitivity, glare, and light halos, resulting from multiple eye injuries endured during service. The Board has carefully reviewed the evidence of record and finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for an unspecified eye disability, to include refractive error. The reasons follow. Although the Veteran’s service treatment records indicate the presence of separate left and right eye injuries, the preponderance of the evidence does not indicate the Veteran to have a present disability for purposes of considering service connection under VA regulations. On entrance examination in November 1976, the Veteran was found to have 20/200 vision, bilaterally, which was improved to 20/20 vision with correction. He received a normal clinical evaluation of the eyes at that time. In April 1979, the Veteran sought treatment for left eye trauma, indicating that it was painful and that something got in his eye, possibly cigarette ash, but he was unsure. In July 1979, the Veteran sought treatment for burning and blurred vision in his right eye after he burned his eye with a hot round ejected from a rifle. However, on separation examination in June 1980, the Veteran denied a history of eye trouble. He reported that he had worn glasses since early childhood. The Veteran’s vision was again listed as 20/200, bilaterally, corrected to 20/20, and he received a normal clinical evaluation of the eyes. Since that time, treatment records indicate that the Veteran’s only current eye condition is refractive error. In September 2009, the Veteran presented for a self-referred initial optometry consultation at the VA. The Veteran reported that he was told approximately ten years prior that he had cataracts. However, following an eye examination, the Veteran was assessed with refractive error only. The Veteran underwent another comprehensive VA eye examination in February 2015. He reported light sensitivity and that he must move close to things to see them. The Veteran again was diagnosed only with refractive error. Cataracts and any other eye disability have not been evidenced on eye examination. The Board finds that service connection for vision loss based on refractive error is denied because his reduced vision is correctable refractive error and is not a disability for the purposes of service connection. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9. Refractive errors, such as myopia, hyperopia, and astigmatism, are considered developmental defects not eligible for service connection. Actual pathology, other than refractive error, is required to support impairment of visual acuity. Thus, service connection for this diagnosis is denied. Id. It is noted that the Veteran’s representative has argued that the Veteran’s eye injuries in service physically damaged the Veteran’s eyes as indicated by changes in refraction noted from the time of the Veteran’s entrance examination to the time of his separation examination. The representative indicated that finding the Veteran’s eye disability to be a developmental defect is contradicted by the eye injuries as shown in the Veteran’s service treatment records. The Board finds this argument unpersuasive because it does not to change that the weight of the evidence shows the Veteran’s only current eye condition to be refractive error, for which service connection cannot be awarded under VA regulations. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9. Despite the in-service injuries, refractive error was present at the time of the Veteran’s entrance to service and the Veteran has worn glasses to treat this issue since early childhood. Additionally, despite refractive changes noted at separation, this does not confer a separate diagnosis and the Veteran denied any history of eye problems and received a normal clinical evaluation of the eyes. Further, the same level of refractive error that was documented at service entrance was also documented at separation. Specifically, the Veteran was documented to have 20/200 vision without correction in both eyes at service entrance, which both corrected to 20/20 vision and the same clinical findings at separation. Thus, while there may have been differences in the level of refraction documented within the entrance and the separation examinations, the uncorrected vision and the corrected vision had stayed the same, and the Veteran was not complaining of eye problems at service discharge. The Board notes that VA has not provided the Veteran with an examination or opinion in connection with the claim for service connection. VA must provide a medical examination and/or medical opinion when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the claimant qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the veteran's service, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for the Secretary to make a decision on the claim. McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). However, "VA must consider lay evidence but may give it whatever weight it concludes the evidence is entitled to" and a mere conclusory generalized lay statement that service event or illness caused the claimant's current condition is insufficient to require the Secretary to provide an examination. Waters v. Shinseki, 601 F.3d 1274, 1278 (2010). In this case, the evidence does not show an eligible current disability under VA regulations. As stated, the longitudinal record indicates the Veteran’s only eye condition to be refractive error, a developmental defect that is not eligible for service connection. There is also no indication that the Veteran’s symptoms of reduced vision may be associated with the Veteran’s service, as his visual acuity was the same at service entrance and separation. For a VA examination and/or medical opinion to be warranted, all the McLendon criteria must be met, and at least one element is not met. Therefore, entitlement to a VA examination and/or medical opinion is not warranted for this service-connection claim. As the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection, the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application, and the Veteran’s claim is denied. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board G. Wonderling, 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.