Citation Nr: A25035170 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 241014-482618 DATE: April 16, 2025 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for left eye condition is denied. FINDING OF FACT The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran has had a left eye condition or any related disability at any time during or approximate to the pendency of the claim; or that a left eye condition began during active service, or is otherwise related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for a left eye condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from May 1993 to May 1997. This matter is on appeal to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a March 2024 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the October 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran timely appealed the portion of the rating decision pertaining to the issue above and requested direct review of the evidence considered by the RO. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2024 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Any evidence submitted after the AOJ decision on appeal cannot be considered by the Board. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801. Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed. As the Board is deciding the claim of service connection for left eye condition, it may not consider this evidence in its decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.300. The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision. 1. Service Connection for Left Eye Condition The Veteran contends he has a left eye condition that was related to his service. The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease. The Board concludes that the Veteran does not have a current diagnosis of the left eye and has not had one at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim. Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007). Service treatment records show no complaints, diagnosis, or treatment related to a left eye condition. Post-service, the evidence does not contain any private and VA medical records that shows complaints, diagnosis, or treatments for the left eye. Prior to the rating decision on appeal, the AOJ attempted to obtain any VA treatment records for the Veteran. A December 2023 record from the AOJ confirms that there are no progress notes found for the Veteran. In the October 2023 claim, the Veteran did not report receiving private treatment for the left eye. In the October 2024 appeal, the Veteran reported that he was not examined when the claim was denied. The Veteran was not afforded a VA examination in connection with his claim for service connection for left eye condition prior to the rating decision on appeal.? Generally, a VA medical examination or opinion is necessary when there is (1) competent evidence of a current disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability, (2) evidence establishing that an event, injury, or disease occurred in service, or establishing certain diseases manifesting during an applicable presumptive period for which the veteran qualifies, and (3) an indication that the disability or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a disability may be associated with the Veteran's service or with another service-connected disability, but (4) there is insufficient competent medical evidence on file for VA to make a decision on the claim.? 38?U.S.C. §?5103A(d)(2); 38?C.F.R. §?3.159(c)(4)(i); see also McLendon v. Nicholson, 20?Vet. App.?79, 83 (2006).? The threshold for determining whether the evidence "indicates" that there "may" be a nexus between a current disability and an in-service event, injury, or disease is a low one.? Id. Here, a VA medical examination was not necessary. While the Veteran believes that he has a left eye condition was related to service, the evidence during the appeal period did not indicate any current left eye condition, or persistent or recurrent symptoms of a left eye condition. Further, there was no evidence indicating an in-service injury, event, or illness related to the left eye condition to trigger the requirement for a VA examination. Thus, there was no pre-decisional duty to assist error in not scheduling an examination for the left eye claim. 38 C.F.R. § 20.802. Upon review of the record, the Board finds that the most persuasive evidence weighs against the claim of service connection for the claimed left eye condition. Here, the service treatment records do not show any incurrence of a left eye condition. The other evidence in the claims file does not show any indication of a current left eye condition. The Veteran has not provided any lay evidence describing his symptoms or whether the reach the level of a functional impairment of earning capacity. While the Veteran believes the claimed left eye condition was related to service, the evidence during the appeal period does not support his claim. The service and post-service records is absent of any complaint, diagnosis, or treatment of a left eye condition. Accordingly, the most persuasive evidence of record is against finding that service connection for a left eye condition is warranted, and the claim is denied.? 38 U.S.C. § 5107; 38 C.F.R. § 3.102; Lynch v. McDonough, 21 F.4th 776 (2021) (en banc). D. Martz Ames Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Mathew, M. 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.