Citation Nr: 22005239 Decision Date: 02/01/22 Archive Date: 02/01/22 DOCKET NO. 10-00 919 DATE: February 1, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for bilateral nuclear sclerosis, vitreous floaters, and visual field defect (vision disability) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1965 to January 1969. This case initially came before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from an April 2009 rating decision, which, among other things, denied entitlement to service connection for vision condition. In June 2009 the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement (NOD) and in December 2009 the RO issued a statement of the case (SOC). In January 2010 the Veteran filed a substantive appeal (via VA Form 9). In April 2016, February 2018, January 2021, and October 2021 the Board remanded the Veteran's claim to determine the etiology of his vision disability. Unfortunately, another remand is warranted for an additional medical opinion. The Board regrets the additional delay. Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires competent evidence of three things: (1) current disability; (2) in-service incurrence of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2018). Consistent with this framework, service connection is warranted for a disease first diagnosed after service when all of the evidence, including that pertinent to service, establishes that the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d). Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to, or aggravated by, service-connected disease or injury. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a),(b). Entitlement to service connection for vision disability is remanded. A May 2021 VA optometrist diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral nuclear sclerosis, vitreous floaters, and visual field defect. Thus, a current disability has been demonstrated. In a July 2008 Statement in Support of Claim (VA Form 21-4138) the Veteran stated that his vision disability is secondary to his service-connected diabetes mellitus, type II (DM II). The Veteran, whose military occupation specialty was aircraft fuel systems mechanic, also noted his exposure to hazardous chemicals. Also, in December 2021 the Veteran's representative submitted an informal hearing presentation (IHP), which stated that his vision disability is "not merely 'age progression' determinants but are due to his time in service." In a December 2008 VA Memo, a military records specialist and claims processing coach made a formal finding and determined that the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) are partially unavailable. In these circumstances, when a Veteran's STRs are unavailable through no fault of his own, VA's duties to assist, to provide reasons and bases for its findings and conclusions, and to consider carefully the benefit-of-the-doubt rule are heightened. Milostan v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 250, 252 (1993). Taken together, the Veteran's missing STRs and his reports of exposure to hazardous chemicals reflect an in-service event with which his current eye disability may be associated. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A(d). There are medical opinions from May and November 2001 medical opinions addressing the secondary but not the direct theory. Consequently, a new medical opinion addressing the direct theory is warranted. Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Request an opinion from an appropriate physician to determine the etiology of the Veteran's vision disability. If an examination is deemed necessary, one should be conducted, to include via telehealth if warranted. The physician must opine whether the Veteran's vision disability had its onset in or is related to service, to include exposure to hazardous chemicals as described by the Veteran in his statements. Jonathan Hager Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board J.R. Miller, 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.