Citation Nr: 23045596 Decision Date: 08/16/23 Archive Date: 08/16/23 DOCKET NO. 16-63 978 DATE: August 16, 2023 ORDER Service connection for an eye disorder, claimed as partial blindness, to include as due to an undiagnosed Gulf War illness, is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran does not have a diagnosis of an eye disorder for VA compensation purposes. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for an eye disorder, claimed as partial blindness, are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1101, 1131, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.303, 3.307, 3.309. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1987 to June 2011. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified at a video conference hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in March 2021. A transcript of the hearing is associated with the claims file. This claim was remanded in January 2022 for further development. The Board is now satisfied with the development of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction, and the claim is now ready for adjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271(1998); D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 105 (2008). Service Connection Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates that a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service. 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) evidence of 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 also Caluza v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 498, 506 (1995), aff'd per curiam, 78 F.3d 604 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder The Veteran provided competent lay evidence of impaired vision and associated headaches, which he believes are signs and symptoms of a Gulf War Illness. Service connection for headaches, diagnosed as tension headaches, was denied in an unappealed February 2015 rating decision. Hence, that matter is not presently before the Board. However, the Veteran continues to contend that he has an eye disorder that is due to active-duty service, including a 2009 in service incident where a foreign object was removed from his eye. Upon review of the evidence of record, the Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of an eye disorder and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107(b); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a), (d). In arriving at this conclusion, the Board notes that an October 2022 VA examiner opined that there is no ocular pathology observed on examination. There are no ocular symptoms recorded. However, testing provides that uncorrected near vision is 20/50 in each eye; however, this is correctable to 20/20 in each eye. This is attributed to refractive error which is considered congenital/developmental in error. This would not be attributed to military service or an undiagnosed illness. The Veteran had a history of subconjunctival hemorrhage prior to the period on appeal. This was also supported by a February 2022 VA examination that found no eye disability. Therefore, the Board finds that these are not conditions for which service connection may be granted, as congenital or developmental defects, such as refractive error of the eyes, are not considered "diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation" and, hence, do not constitute disability for VA compensation purposes. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9; Beno v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 439, 441 (1992). The Board also acknowledges the Veteran's assertions and belief that he has an eye disorder; however, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case. The issue is medically complex and requires specialized medical education and knowledge of the interaction between multiple organ systems in the body, as well as the ability to interpret complicated diagnostic medical testing. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007). Further, given that the Veteran is competent to report eye symptoms such as impaired vision, the Board acknowledges the holding in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), which indicates that pain can constitute a "disability" under 38 U.S.C. § 1110. However, the Board finds that to the extent its holding is applicable to this appeal, as discussed, the evidence does not demonstrate that the Veteran's pain, as it relates to the asserted eye disorder, causes sufficient functional limitation contemplated by Saunders. The Board is grateful for the Veteran's honorable service. However, the weight of the evidence in this case is against a finding that the Veteran has an eye disorder at any point during the period on appeal that is related to his active-duty service and the Benefit of the Doubt rule is not for application. See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; Rabideau v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 141 (1992); see also 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). ANTHONY C. SCIRÉ, JR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board D. Billinger, 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.