Citation Nr: 21021924 Decision Date: 04/14/21 Archive Date: 04/14/21 DOCKET NO. 20-04 472 DATE: April 14, 2021 REMANDED The claim for service connection for an eye disorder, including as the result of exposure to herbicides, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran retired from the United States Air Force in 1972, after having served on active service from December 1951 to January 1972. This appeal comes before the Board from a September 2018 rating decision of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Des Moines, Iowa which denied service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus in addition to the bilateral eye disorder that is the subject of this remand. In a January 2020 rating decision, service connection was granted for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus was granted. Hence the issues of service connection for bilateral hearing loss and tinnitus are no longer on appeal. The Board notes that the Veteran’s VA Form 9 indicated that he did not want a hearing and that he also desired a hearing. However, in September 2020 written correspondence, the Veteran stated that he did not want a hearing and, therefore, the Board may proceed. The Veteran contends that he has a bilateral eye condition that is the result of his active service, including exposure to sand and bright sun without protection while stationed in Saudi Arabia. In addition, his representative argues the Veteran served in Vietnam and Thailand and is entitled to the presumption of exposure to herbicides. Presumed exposure to herbicides, including Agent Orange, entitles the Veteran to presumptive service connection for diabetes mellitus. Thus, the Veteran’s representative argues the Veteran has a secondary service connection claim for diabetic retinopathy. There is no dispute that the Veteran has a current eye disability, and that he was treated for eye conditions during active service. Private and VA treatment records, and the 2018 VA eye examination shows he is diagnosed with bilateral glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, dry eyes, pseudophakia, and has undergone surgery for cataracts. In addition, VA treatment records show a history of torn retina. Service treatment records reflect that he was treated for complaints of dust in his eyes, redness, burning and tired eyes. He was prescribed drops for redness in his eyes. A 1970 eye consult shows he was treated for pinguecula and described as having some kind of pressure in his eyes. The physician’s writing is occasionally illegible, but the notation appears to be of distal or distant “pressure”. Moreover, the Veteran’s assertions that his symptoms had their onset during active service and persisted to the present references the chronic nature of his claimed eye condition. Therefore, VA properly accorded him VA examination in 2018. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c)(4). The 2018 VA examiner opined it was less likely that his currently diagnosed eye conditions, including retinopathy, dry eyes, and pseudophakia, were the result of active service. As rationale, the VA examiner explained that “tired eyes” does not have a direct impact on long term visual acuity potential or strength of eyeglass prescription. However, the VA examiner made no comment on the other conditions for which the Veteran received treatment during active service and did not address the history of torn retina and cataract surgery or the currently diagnosed glaucoma. Therefore, the Board cannot conclude that the 2018 VA examination and opinion are adequate. See Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 304 (2008); Stefl v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 120, 124 (2007). Once VA undertakes the effort to provide an examination when developing a claim, the examination must be an adequate one. See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 311 (2007). Furthermore, the Board recognizes the argument of the Veteran’s representative that the Veteran’s eye condition is relate to exposure to herbicides. Service records reflect the Veteran served in Saudi Arabia from September 1963 to September 1964 and reported to Takhli Royal Thailand Air Force Base in January 1969. Further development should be completed to determine any exposure to herbicides. Finally, the Board notes that in the representative’s brief, it is argued that one of the Veteran’s diagnoses pertaining to the eyes is secondary to his nonservice-connected diabetes mellitus type II. However, the Veteran has not yet initiated a claim for such a disability. When he claimed service connection for an eye disability, he claimed service connection for eyesight and the claim for diabetes mellitus type II is not before the Board. However, the Veteran is advised to file the appropriate application with the RO to adjudicate that claim. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Conduct all appropriate development to determine whether the Veteran’s service involved exposure to herbicides, including Agent Orange. Such development should include any potential service in the Republic of Vietnam as argued by his representative, as well as his known assignment to Takhli Royal Thailand Air Force Base in 1969. 2. After all appropriate development, the 2018 VA examination for eyes should be returned to the VA examiner who conducted it. If that examiner is not available or the RO determines another VA examination should be conducted, the VA should schedule the Veteran for VA examination with the appropriate specialist to determine the nature and etiology of his claimed eye disorder, to include the diagnosed bilateral glaucoma, diabetic retinopathy, dry eyes, pseudophakia, and cataracts. The entire claims folder must be made available and reviewed by the examiner in conjunction with the examination. All eye disorders must be diagnosed. For all eye conditions diagnosed, the VA examiner is asked to provide an opinion as to whether it is as likely as not that any diagnosed eye disorder is the result of the Veteran’s active service, to include exposure to herbicides. The examiner is specifically asked to address the following: 1) the notation in the 1970 eye consult of what appears to be distal or distant “pressure”; 2) service treatment notations of complaints of and treatment for dust in his eyes, redness, burning, pinguecula, and/or fatigued or tired eyes; and 3) the Veteran’s report that while stationed in Saudi Arabia, he was subjected to bright sunlight without protection. A complete rationale must be provided for any and all opinions rendered. 3. Readjudicate the claim. If the claim remains denied, prepare a supplemental statement of the case, and provide it to the Veteran and his representative. Return the claim to the Board. JESSICA SEAY Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Bakke, Lila J. 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.