Citation Nr: 21031280 Decision Date: 05/21/21 Archive Date: 05/21/21 DOCKET NO. 16-39 351 DATE: May 21, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran's eye disorder was not shown in service or for many years thereafter and is not related to service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5103(a), 5103A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.303, 3.304, 3.310. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from September 1983 to September 1987. This appeal is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a December 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in St. Paul, Minnesota. In November 2018, this case was remanded by the Board for further development. After further development, this case is ready for adjudication. 1. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder The Veteran is claiming entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, which he asserts is related to active service. Specifically, he asserts that his eye disorder stems from accidents that occurred during service. Specifically, under the relevant laws and regulations, service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131. Generally, the evidence must show: (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, 1166-67 (Fed. Cir. 2004); Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 505 (1995). Upon review of all evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran's service connection claim for an eye disorder should be denied. The Veteran's service treatment records indicate that the Veteran was treated for swollen right eye lids, injured eyes during an aircraft fire, and an eye injury during a fuel spill. However, it appears that all of the symptoms were resolved, and no eye diagnoses were rendered. In fact, the Veteran's August 1987 separation examination indicated no issues with his eyes. The post service evidence does not reflect symptoms related to an eye disorder for many years after the Veteran left active duty service. Specifically, the first indication of an eye disorder was not until approximately 2011 when he was treated for dry eye disorder with artificial tears. As part of this claim, the Board recognizes the statements from the Veteran regarding his history of eye symptoms since service. In this regard, while the Veteran is not competent to make a diagnosis related to an eye disorder, as it may not be diagnosed by its unique and readily identifiable features, and thus requires a determination that is "medical in nature," he is nonetheless competent to testify about the presence of observable symptomatology such as itching, which may provide sufficient support for a claim of service connection, if credible, regardless of the lack of contemporaneous medical evidence. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007); See Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307 (2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Nevertheless, the Board determines that the Veteran's reported history of continued symptomatology since active service, while competent, is insufficient to warrant service connection solely on this basis. First, the Veteran's 1987 separation examination with no complaints of issues with his eyes weigh against these assertions. Moreover, the gap in treatment is inconsistent with having symptoms since service as well. Thus, continuity of symptomatology has not been established by the Veteran's statements. Next, service connection may also be granted when the evidence establishes a medical nexus between active duty service and current complaints. In this case, the Board finds that the weight of the competent evidence does not attribute the Veteran's claimed eye disorder to active duty, despite his contentions to the contrary. The Board places significant probative value on the VA examiner's opinions from December 2015 and June 2017 which specifically addressed the issue on appeal. Specifically, at the December 2015 examination, the examiner observed that the Veteran was sprayed in the eyes with jet fuel while in service, and later developed a stye on his right upper eyelid. However, the examiner ultimately concluded that the Veteran's current dry eye disorder was less likely than not related to service, but was more likely due to his age. The Board acknowledges the March 2016 private opinion submitted by the Veteran. However, this opinion is found to be less probative as it states that the events in service "could" be responsible for the Veteran's current eye disorder. Furthermore, it is conclusory and supported by no rationale. Moreover, in response to this opinion, the VA examiner who examined the Veteran in December 2015 provided an addendum opinion in June 2017 that there was no evidence of dry eyes at the time of the examination, and reiterated that his current eye disorders were less likely than not related to service. Specifically, in addition to the fact that dry eyes were not noted on numerous occasions during the appeal (which belies a diagnosis of a chronic condition) the lack of symptoms since 1987 does not support a relationship. When weighing the opinions of record, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to support a nexus. The Board also acknowledges the statements from the Veteran regarding the etiology of his eye disorder, which he asserts was caused by active duty service. A lay person is competent to report observable symptomatology, such as pain. Barr v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 303, 307-08 (2007). However, etiology of dysfunctions and disorders is a medical determination and generally must be established by medical findings and opinion. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Thus, to the extent that the Veteran believes that his eye disorder may be the result of service, he is a lay person without appropriate medical training and expertise to provide a medical nexus opinion regarding the etiology of his disorder. The Board concludes that the preponderance of the evidence is against the claim for service connection for an eye disorder, and there is no doubt to be otherwise resolved. Therefore, the claim for service connection must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49 (1990). B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Billinger, Associate Counsel