Citation Nr: 21020901 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 13-08 056 DATE: April 8, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a dry eye condition is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy Reserve from January 1986 to January 1989, from November 2001 to November 2002, and from June 2003 to December 2003. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2010 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In November 2020, the Board remanded the matter for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a dry eye condition is remanded. In November 2010, the Veteran submitted a statement regarding irritation of the eyes. He contended that the condition was caused during his active service between 1986 and 1989, and also during the time he served in Kuwait. He further noted that during his service in Kuwait, he was exposed to “sand dust.” In November 2020, the Veteran underwent a VA eye conditions examination, in accordance with Board remand directives. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral eye dryness syndrome. The examiner then considered, and rejected, the theory that the Veteran’s condition was related to an in-service bout of conjunctivitis, noting that the condition resolved. The examiner did not consider, however, whether the Veteran’s condition could be related to the sand and dust that the Veteran experienced in Kuwait. Thus, the Board finds the November 2020 VA examination to be inadequate for adjudication purposes due to the examiner’s failure to consider this theory of service connection. See Nov. 2010 Statement in Support of Claim. Accordingly, the claim must be remanded in order to obtain an adequate examination and opinion. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 312 (2007) (when VA undertakes to provide a VA examination or obtain a VA opinion, it must ensure that the examination or opinion is adequate). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Schedule the Veteran for an examination to determine the nature and etiology of his bilateral eye condition. Any indicated evaluations, studies, and tests deemed necessary by the examiner should be accomplished. The entire claims file, to include a complete copy of this REMAND, should be made available to the examiner designated to provide an opinion, and the examination report must include a discussion of the Veteran’s documented medical history and assertions. The examiner should offer comments, an opinion, and a supporting rationale that address the following: (a.) Identify all diagnoses that pertain to the Veteran’s bilateral eye condition. If the examiner opines that the Veteran does not have a bilateral eye condition, the examiner must provide a full explanation as to why the Veteran’s complaints of dry eyes do not rise to the level of a diagnosable condition. (b.) For any diagnoses, is it at least likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that such disability was incurred in, aggravated by, or is otherwise etiologically related to the Veteran’s active duty service, to include exposure to sand and dust in service, or conjunctivitis in service? See Nov. 2010 Statement in Support of Claim. In providing the opinion, the examiner must consider and address all relevant lay and medical evidence of record. The examiner is advised that the Veteran is competent to report symptoms, treatment, and injuries and that his reports must be taken into account in formulating the requested opinions. The examiner must provide rationale for all proffered opinions. If the examiner is unable to provide any required opinion, he or she should explain why. If the examiner cannot provide an opinion without resorting to mere speculation, he or she shall provide a complete explanation as to why this is so. If the inability to provide a more definitive opinion is the result of a need for additional information, the examiner should identify the additional information that is needed. A. S. CARACCIOLO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Watkins, 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.