Citation Nr: A25035347 Decision Date: 04/16/25 Archive Date: 04/16/25 DOCKET NO. 240318-425972 DATE: April 16, 2025 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disability, to include glaucoma, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty in the Navy from December 1987 through December 2007, to include in the Southwest Asia theater of operations. His primary specialty was Transmission System Technician. See DD form 214. The matters come before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2024 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). In the March 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. 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. However, because the Board is remanding the claim, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of that claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). Service connection for a bilateral eye disability. The Board has recharacterized the issue on appeal based on the evidence and contentions of record that more broadly raises the question of service connection for an acquired bilateral eye disability. The VA has conceded that the Veteran participated in a TERA in the November 2023 toxic exposure risk activity (TERA) memo. In response, VA obtained an opinion on the contended relationship between the glaucoma diagnosis and this conceded exposure. In review of the record, however, the Board finds that the issue has been more broadly raised as to whether a current acquired eye diagnosis, to include glaucoma, is directly related to service, to include the contended symptoms in service. The Board notes that prior to the claim for glaucoma that the Veteran had previously sought service connection for an eye disability. Although a VA opinion was obtained as part of that earlier appeal, the Board finds that the AOJ committed a duty-to-assist error in not obtaining a VA opinion that addressed the diagnoses and contentions of record at the time of the rating decision on appeal. For these reasons, remand is necessary to correct a pre-decisional duty to assist the Veteran by providing an adequate examination. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Schedule the Veteran for a VA examination with an appropriate medical professional to determine the nature and etiology of the Veteran's acquired eye disabilities. After review of the record and examination, the examiner should note the Veteran's acquired eye disabilities. For each diagnosis, the examiner should offer an opinion as to whether it is approximately at least as likely as not that such had its onset in or is otherwise related to the Veteran's military service. In this respect, the clinician must address the Veteran's reports that his symptoms began in service, and the records of the Veteran's treatment for eye complaints in service. In offering any opinion, the clinician must address the Veteran's statements regarding the onset and continuity of symptomatology. A rationale should be provided for any opinion offered. Nathaniel Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Rippel, Chloe 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.