93 Decision Citation: BVA 93-11796 Y93 BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 DOCKET NO. 91-44 438 ) DATE ) ) ) THE ISSUE Entitlement to service connection for a bilateral eye disorder. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD James J. Dunphy, Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Board on appeal from a September 1990 rating action of the Denver, Colorado, Regional Office (hereinafter RO). The veteran served on active duty from August 1963 to August 1967. The notice of disagreement was received in March 1991, and a statement of the case was issued in April 1991. The veteran submitted a substantive appeal in June 1991. He offered testimony before a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) hearing officer in August 1991. The case was received and docketed at the Board in October 1991. The case was remanded in April 1992 for the veteran to provide information with regard to private medical treatment. There was no reply to this request, and the case was again received at the Board in January 1993. The Disabled American Veterans has served as the veteran's representative throughout the appellate process and submitted additional written arguments on his behalf in February 1993. CONTENTIONS OF APPELLANT ON APPEAL The veteran contends that service connection for the bilateral eye disorder is appropriate. He states he sustained a head injury in service, which led to a marked decrease in visual acuity. DECISION OF THE BOARD In accordance with the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104 (West 1991), following review and consideration of all evidence and material of record in the veteran's claims file, and for the following reasons and bases, it is the decision of the Board that the preponderance of the evidence is against the grant of service connection for a bilateral eye disorder. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran fell through a hatch while serving aboard ship in service, but did not sustain a head injury. 2. While there was a decrease in visual acuity in the veteran's left eye during service, this decrease did not produce uncorrectable impairment of vision. 3. The increased myopia, not the result of trauma, is a developmental disorder. CONCLUSION OF LAW An acquired bilateral eye disorder was not incurred in or aggravated by service. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1992). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Initially, we note that the veteran's case is well grounded. By this, we mean that he has submitted a claim which is plausible. We further conclude that the VA has met its statutory duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim, and that no further development is required to meet the provisions of 38 U.S.C.A. § 5107 (West 1991). In this regard, we note that the case was remanded for the veteran to provide information by which additional records could be secured. The veteran failed to respond to the RO's request. We conclude that the VA has performed all appropriate development possible with regard to the veteran's claim. "The duty to assist is not always a one-way street. If a veteran wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1991). When the veteran was examined upon entry onto active duty, in August 1963, visual acuity was 20/100, correctable to 20/30, bilaterally. In April 1967, the veteran fell through a hatch, striking his left posterior axillary area and injuring his left ankle. He sustained no head trauma. We further note no reports of head or eye trauma throughout the rest of the veteran's period of service. On examination for separation from service in August 1967, the general eye, ophthalmoscopic, pupil and ocular mobility examinations showed no pertinent abnormalities. Visual acuity was 20/50, right, and 20/200, left, correctable to 20/20, bilaterally. Subsequent to service, the veteran underwent cataract extraction and lens implant in the right eye in a VA facility in May 1989. On VA examination in August 1990, the history of cataract extraction was noted, and the veteran reported no prior eye injury. On ophthalmoscopic examination, the discs, maculae and vessels were normal bilaterally. Extended ocular movements were full, as were visual fields. Visual acuity was 20/20, corrected, with aphakia in the right eye. Initially, we note that the evidence does not support the contention that the veteran sustained an eye injury in service which lead to post service complications such as the cataract in the right eye. It was specifically noted that there was no head injury when the veteran fell down a hatch and, when the veteran was examined for separation, no pertinent abnormalities were noted. The veteran has provided no evidence of ocular pathology shortly after service, and has failed to cooperate with the VA's request for information. Therefore, we find that service connection for an eye disorder, resultant from trauma, is not appropriate. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107 (West 1991). We next consider whether service connection is warranted based on a decrease in visual acuity. Normally, decreased visual acuity is a developmental disorder, and not a disability for VA purposes. Therefore, service connection for myopia is not warranted. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1992). However, as the veteran's representative points out, under the provisions of the Veterans Benefits Manual M21-1, service connection may be granted if there is a rapid increase of myopia; for example, 2 diopters in a year. This decreased visual acuity, however, must produce uncorrectable impairment of vision. M21-1, paragraph 50.09(b)(1). In this veteran's case, uncorrected visual acuity in the right eye went from 20/100 on entry to 20/50 at time of separation. These examinations do not reflect a rapid increase in myopia in the right eye during service. Turning to the left eye, we note that the uncorrected visual acuity was 20/100 upon entry onto active duty, and 20/200 on separation from active duty. However, corrected vision in the left eye was 20/20 at the time of separation and on recent VA examination. In the absence of uncorrectable impairment of vision, we conclude that the provisions of M21-1 do not apply and that the veteran's myopia is not a compensable disability within the meaning of legislation pertaining to compensation benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303 (1992). Therefore, in light of the absence of any evidence of head trauma in service, and given the veteran's corrected post service visual acuity, we conclude that service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is not appropriate. ORDER Service connection for a bilateral eye disorder is denied. BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS WASHINGTON, D.C. 20420 * GEORGE R. SENYK BRUCE E. HYMAN *38 U.S.C.A. § 7102(a)(2)(A) (West 1991) permits a Board of Veterans' Appeals Section, upon direction of the Chairman of the Board, to proceed with the transaction of business without awaiting assignment of an additional Member to the Section when the Section is composed of fewer than three Members due to absence of a Member, vacancy on the Board or inability of the Member assigned to the Section to serve on the panel. The Chairman has directed that the Section proceed with the transaction of business, including the (CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE) issuance of decisions, without awaiting the assignment of a third Member. NOTICE OF APPELLATE RIGHTS: Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7266 (West 1991), a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals granting less than the complete benefit, or benefits, sought on appeal is appealable to the United States Court of Veterans Appeals within 120 days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision, provided that a Notice of Disagreement concerning an issue which was before the Board was filed with the agency of original jurisdiction on or after November 18, 1988. Veterans' Judicial Review Act, Pub. L. No. 100-687, § 402 (1988). The date which appears on the face of this decision constitutes the date of mailing and the copy of this decision which you have received is your notice of the action taken on your appeal by the Board of Veterans' Appeals.