Citation Nr: 21014747 Decision Date: 03/15/21 Archive Date: 03/15/21 DOCKET NO. 15-22 136 DATE: March 15, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to service connection for an eye condition is remanded. VETERAN’S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that while in service she assisted with office clean-up without the benefit of personal protective equipment. During that time, fiberglass entered her eyes. That night, the Veteran contends that her eyes began burning and watering and were difficult to keep closed for extended periods of time. The Veteran contends that she sought care in the emergency room the following morning when she was diagnosed with a corneal abrasion. Since then, the Veteran asserts that she experiences itching and watery eyes that impact her vision, and sensitivity to sunlight. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Marine Corps from August 2008 to May 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2014 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). It requires remand for a medical opinion. Service connection will be granted for a disability that results from a disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Service connection may also be granted for a disease first diagnosed after service discharge when all the evidence establishes that the disease was in fact incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). To establish service connection, a showing of competent evidence must confirm (1) current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred or aggravated during service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110, 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). When evaluating a claim for service connection, the Board must consider the entire evidence of record including a full consideration of lay assertions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). A layperson is competent to report on the onset and continuity of his or her current symptomatology. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994) (a Veteran is competent to report on all things of which he or she has personal knowledge derived from his or her own senses); Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303(2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(2). With respect to this claim, the Veteran competently reported upon excessive watering of her eyes which she believes began after exposure to fiberglass while in service that has continued since. See 1/13/2021 Hearing Transcript, 7/31/2014 claim. Additionally, service treatment records evidence treatment for eye irritation and a diagnosis of left eye corneal abrasion. In cases such as this, where there is evidence of a condition that may be associated with an in-service event, injury, or disease, but there is insufficient information to decide the claim, VA is obligated to provide an examination. See 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). Therefore, the Board finds that remand is necessary to provide an examination and obtain a medical opinion. On remand the Board invites the Veteran to submit additional lay and medical evidence to substantiate her claim for service connection. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to be conducted by an appropriate clinician to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran’s eye condition. All clinical findings should be reported in detail. The entire claims file and this Remand should be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with this request. Following review of the claims file and examination of the Veteran, the examiner should provide an opinion regarding whether: It is at least as likely as not (50 percent probability or greater) that the Veteran’s eye condition is causally related to her active service, specifically including as a result of exposure to fiberglass. For the purpose of providing the opinion requested, please accept as valid the Veteran’s statements regarding her history of exposure to fiberglass and immediate resulting symptomology, and the continuity of those signs and symptoms thereafter. A complete rationale for the examiner’s opinion should be provided, citing to specific evidence of record, as necessary. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resort to speculation, the examiner must state whether the need to speculate is due to a deficiency in the state of general medical knowledge (no one could respond given medical science and the known facts), a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), or the examiner (does not have the knowledge or training). If the inability to provide an opinion without resorting to speculation is due to a deficiency in the record (additional facts are required), the AOJ should develop the claim to the extent it is necessary to cure any such deficiency. If the inability to provide an opinion is due to the examiner's lack of requisite knowledge or training, then the AOJ should obtain an opinion from a medical professional who has the knowledge and training needed to render such an opinion. S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Z. Sloley, 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.