Citation Nr: 22010546 Decision Date: 02/24/22 Archive Date: 02/23/22 DOCKET NO. 16-20 216 DATE: February 24, 2022 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include glaucoma and/or cataracts is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from December 1967 to December 1969. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In October 2021, the Veteran testified at a virtual hearing before the undersigned. A transcript of the hearing has been associated with the claims file. Entitlement to service connection for an eye condition, to include glaucoma and/or cataracts is remanded. The Veteran contends his eye condition is due to his active duty service. At the Board hearing, the Veteran asserted that his eye conditions were due to Agent Orange exposure in Vietnam. The Veteran has current diagnoses of pterygium, glaucoma, and cataracts. See private treatment records received in January 2018. His military personnel record reflects service in Vietnam from May 1968 to May 1969. As such, exposure to herbicide agents is conceded. Although the Veteran is presumed to have been exposed to herbicide agents during service, pterygium, glaucoma, and cataracts are not listed as diseases associated with exposure to certain herbicide agents under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e); therefore, service connection may not be granted on a presumptive basis. However, service connection can also be granted on a direct basis if the requirements for service connection are otherwise met. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039, 1043 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Here, the Board finds that there is insufficient evidence to render a decision on his claim, as the Veteran has not been afforded a VA examination. VA has a duty to provide an examination or obtain a medical opinion on an issue of service connection when the record, 1) contains competent evidence that the claimant has a current disability or signs and symptoms of a current disability, 2) indicates that the disability or signs and symptoms of a disability may be associated with active service, and 3) the record does not contain sufficient information to make a decision on the issue. 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (d); McLendon v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 79, 81 (2006). The threshold for determining whether the evidence "indicates" that there "may" be a nexus between a current disability and an in-service event is a low one. McLendon, 20 Vet. App. at 83. As such, based on the record before the Board, a remand for VA examination is necessary to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's eye conditions. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of his pterygium, glaucoma, and cataracts. Any and all studies, tests, and evaluations deemed necessary by the examiner should be performed. The examiner is requested to review all pertinent records associated with the claims file, including a copy of this remand, the Veteran's service treatment records, post-service medical records, and statements. It should be noted that the Veteran is competent to attest to factual matters of which he had first-hand knowledge. If there is a medical basis to support or doubt the history provided by the appellant, the examiner should provide a fully reasoned explanation. After examining the Veteran, and considering his pertinent medical history and lay statements regarding his reported symptoms, the examiner should opine as to: Whether it is at least as likely as not (a 50 percent probability or greater) that any current eye condition, to include the diagnosed pterygium, glaucoma, and/or cataracts were incurred in, aggravated by, or etiologically related to his military service, to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents in service. A clear rationale for all opinions must be provided and a discussion of the facts and medical principles involved would be of considerable assistance to the Board. Cynthia M. Bruce Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R. Williams, 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.