Citation Nr: 21025663 Decision Date: 04/28/21 Archive Date: 04/28/21 DOCKET NO. 16-18 091 DATE: April 28, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is granted. FINDING OF FACT Resolving reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, the evidence is at least in equipoise that the Veteran’s eye disability is a result of active duty. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eye disability are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from June 1962 until June 1964. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2015 Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) regional office (RO) rating decision. The Veteran participated in a November 2018 hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) who is no longer employed by the Board. In a February 2021 letter, the Board informed the Veteran of that fact, giving him the opportunity to appear at a new hearing before a different VLJ. In February 2021 correspondence, the Veteran indicated that he did not wish to appear at another hearing. This matter was previously before the Board in April 2019. In that decision, the Board remanded this matter for a VA examination. The Board notes that while on remand, the issues of entitlement to service connection for a low back disability, right shoulder disability, right knee disability, and left knee disability were granted in a November 2020 rating decision. For this reason, these issues are no longer before the Board. Service Connection Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of (1) a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a nexus between the claimed in-service disease or injury and the present disability. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004); see Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). Regulations also provide that service connection may be granted for any disease diagnosed after discharge, when all the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disability was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). In determining whether service connection is warranted for a disability, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in relative equipoise, with the Veteran prevailing in either event, or whether a preponderance of the evidence is against the claim, in which case the claim is denied. Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability The Veteran contends that he has an eye disability related to his active service. Specifically, he contends that his floaters are related to his MOS as radarman while on active duty as he had to stare at a screen 8 to 12 hours per day. The Veteran’s post-service treatment records, to include the November 2020 VA addendum opinion, diagnosed the Veteran with floaters and cataracts. Therefore, the first Shedden element is satisfied. The Veteran’s DD 214 also confirms that his MOS in service was that of a radarman. Additionally, his service treatment records indicate that he was treated in July 1962 for a small retinal cyst. Therefore, the second Shedden element is satisfied. The remaining question for the Board is determining whether the two are linked. After a review of the claims file, and resolving all doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board concludes that they are. In a January 2014 lay statement, the Veteran stated that he spent 8 to 12 hours per day looking at a radar screen for other ships and vessels. He stated that he first started to develop floaters in his vision during his active duty and they have continued unto the present. The Veteran participated in a March 2015 VA examination for his eye disability. However, the April 2019 Board decision found that this examination failed to address the Veteran’s credible lay reports and July 1962 treatment for an eye disability during the Veteran’s service. For this reason, the Board affords the March 2015 VA examination little probative weight. At a November 2020 addendum VA examination, the VA examiner diagnosed the Veteran, in relevant part, with floaters—onset 1964 while the Veteran was still in service. Regarding this eye disability, the VA examiner stated that they began in 1964 while performing duties as a radarman spending hours watching a radar screen in the dark seven days a week and that the Veteran has many of the same symptoms today as he did in service. However, the VA examiner opined that the Veteran’s floaters were less likely than not related to service as floaters are “very common,” occur naturally with age, and a review of the medical literature reveals no link to staring at a radar screen, “though floaters can be more noticeable staring at a blank background.” Based on the above, the Board finds that the evidence is in relative equipoise. Here, the medical evidence shows that the Veteran’s floaters was present during service in 1964, and have not resolved. While eye floaters are not considered chronic pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.309, or are subject to the continuity of symptomatology provisions, the fact of the matter is the Veteran’s floaters onset in service in 1964, as verified by the November 2020 VA examiner, and have not resolved. In other words, as the Veteran’s eye floaters had its onset in service and existed through the origin of this claim, entitlement to service connection is warranted. See Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 303, 309 (2013). Further supporting this finding is the Veteran’s January 2014 lay reports that his eye floaters onset in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). As the Board resolves reasonable doubt in the Veteran’s favor, any further discussion of the evidence is not necessary. The nature and extent of the Veteran’s eye disability is not before the Board at this time. M. Mills Acting Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board C. Finelli, 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.