Citation Nr: 21020989 Decision Date: 04/08/21 Archive Date: 04/08/21 DOCKET NO. 14-09 191 DATE: April 8, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision is denied. FINDING OF FACT The preponderance of the evidence is against finding that the Veteran has a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision due to an in-service event, injury, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from May 1968 to May 1970. He died in May 2015. The appellant, who is the Veteran’s surviving spouse, has been properly substituted for the Veteran. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a June 2013 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Oakland, California. Entitlement to service connection for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision is denied. Prior to his death, the Veteran contended that he has scarring of the eye and decreased vision that is related to an in-service, event, illness, or injury, as he reported that he injured his eye during Navy basic training. Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Service connection requires competent evidence showing: (1) the existence of a present 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. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. The benefit of the doubt rule provides that a veteran will prevail in a case where the positive evidence is in a relative balance with the negative evidence. Therefore, the Veteran prevails in a claim when: (1) the weight of the evidence supports the claim, or (2) when the evidence is in equipoise. It is only when the weight of the evidence is against the claim that the claim must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). The Board initially notes that the Veteran was not afforded a VA examination for his service connection claim for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision. In determining whether the duty to assist requires that a VA medical examination be provided, or medical opinion obtained with respect to a Veteran’s claim for benefits, there are four factors for consideration. These four factors are: (1) whether there is competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability; (2) whether there is evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or evidence establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period; (3) whether there is an indication that the disability or symptoms may be associated with service or with another service-connected disability; and (4) whether there otherwise is sufficient competent medical evidence of record to make a decision on the claim. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (c)(4). The third factor, in particular, is a low threshold. See McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79 (2006). In this regard, the Board finds that neither the Veteran nor the appellant submitted sufficient evidence to indicate that the Veteran had a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision that were related to an event, injury, or disease that occurred in service. Accordingly, the Board finds that no further development of the Veteran’s claims for service connection for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision is required. Turning to the evidence, a service personnel record indicates that the Veteran enlisted in the U.S. Navy Reserve in February 1964. A January 1964 enlistment examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. A May 1964 report of medical examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. A May 1964 report of medical history documented the Veteran’s report that he had never experienced eye trouble. An August 1964 report of medical examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. An October 1964 report of medical examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. An October 1964 report of medical history documented the Veteran’s report that he had never experienced eye trouble. A June 1965 report of medical examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. A June 1965 report of medical history documented the Veteran’s report that he had never experienced eye trouble. A June 1966 report of medical examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. A June 1966 report of medical history documented the Veteran’s report that he had a can of “braso” explode in his eyes and scratched his right eye. He wrote a question mark on the medical history form as to whether he had experienced eye trouble. The examiner reported that the Veteran had a mild abrasion to his right eye in 1964 with no sequelae and that the condition was not disqualifying. A March 1970 separation examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. A March 1971 separation examination reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye and normal visual acuity. A March 1971 report of medical history documented the Veteran’s report that he had never experienced eye trouble. In March 2012, the VA received from the Veteran a VA Form 21-526, Application for Compensation and/or Pension, in which he claimed service connection for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision. In the remarks section of the application, the Veteran provided the following: While in the Navy I also suffered from an accident when a can of brasso (brass cleaner) blew up in my face. I was examined for injuries and it was found that I suffered from a chemical burn and had scarring to the eye. This occurred while I was in basic training at Olathe, KS. I went to sick call immediately after the incident and was ordered to wear a patch over the eye while it recovered. This has been a continual problem since that time and has caused decrease vision. In December 2013, the Veteran submitted a notice of disagreement in which he expressed that his eye scarring injury happened in July 1964 during a training program. A May 2014 VA primary care note reported the Veteran was having vision issues. However, a review of the Veteran’s body systems did not report any issues with the Veteran’s eyes. As previously described, prior to his death, the Veteran contended that his eye scar and decreased vision were caused by an incident that happened in July 1964. However, a January 1964 enlistment examination, conducted before the Veteran entered service, reported the Veteran had a 1/2-inch scar under his right eye. Service medical examinations conducted in January 1964, May 1964, August 1964, October 1964, June 1965, June 1966, March 1970, and March 1971 all reported normal visual acuity. The Veteran reported in May 1964, October 1964, and June 1965 that he had never experienced any eye trouble. Although the Veteran wrote a question mark on the June 1966 medical history form as to whether he had experienced eye trouble, on a subsequent March 1971 report of medical history, he reported that he had never experienced any eye trouble. Moreover, neither the Veteran nor appellant submitted any evidence indicating the Veteran had decreased vision The earliest evidence of decreased vision was the Veteran’s filing of a service connection claim for decreased vision in March 2012, more than forty years after the Veteran was discharged from active service. The only medical evidence of decreased vision is the May 2014 VA primary care note that documented the Veteran’s report that he was having vision issues. However, a VA primary care note drafted on the same date did not report any issues with the Veteran’s eyes. A lay person is competent to address etiology in some limited circumstances in which nexus is obvious merely through lay observation, such as a fall leading to a broken leg. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2007). In this case, however, the Veteran’s earliest complaint of decreased vision in the record was many years after separation from active service and the question of causation extends beyond an immediately observable cause-and-effect relationship. As such, the Veteran is not competent to address the etiology of his decreased vision. Moreover, the record shows that the Veteran already had a ½-inch scar below his right eye before his period of enlistment commenced in February 1964. As described above, the first prong of a service connection claim is a current disability. The evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran had decreased vision during the pendency of the appeal. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that “Congress specifically limits entitlement for service-connected disease or injury to cases where such incidents have resulted in a disability. In the absence of proof of a present disability there can be no valid claim.” Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223, 225 (1992). Based on a review of the foregoing evidence and the applicable laws and regulations, the Board finds that the preponderance of the evidence is against the Veteran’s claim for service connection for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision. In reaching this conclusion, the Board has considered the applicability of the benefit-of-the-doubt doctrine; however, as the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, that doctrine is not helpful to this claimant. See 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-56 (1990). Service connection has not been established and the Veteran’s claim for a chemical burn and scarring of the eye with decreased vision must be denied. KELLI A. KORDICH Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board T. Moore, 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.