Case 26003094

EVAN M. DEICHERT · 2026 · Case ID: 26003094

DENIED

Summary

The veteran, who served in the United States Navy from September 1965 to August 1969, appeals the denial of service connection for an eye disorder, specifically presbyopia and retinopathy, and for dry eye syndrome. The veteran also contends that his eye conditions are secondary to diabetes and related to in-service herbicide and chemical exposures. The Board found that presbyopia is a congenital or developmental defect and not a disability for which service connection can be granted. Regarding retinopathy, the Board noted that while the veteran had prior diagnoses, the evidence during the period on appeal did not establish a current diagnosis. Multiple VA examinations consistently found no current retinopathy, and a later SSOC clarifying a prior statement that service connection was established was deemed unsupported. For dry eye syndrome, the Board acknowledged the veteran's diagnosis and treatment, and conceded in-service herbicide exposure. However, multiple VA opinions concluded that dry eye syndrome was less likely than not related to service, diabetes, or toxic exposures, attributing it instead to age and environmental factors. The Board found these negative opinions probative and adequate, noting the absence of competent medical evidence to the contrary. Consequently, the Board denied service connection for both the eye disorder (presbyopia, retinopathy) and dry eye syndrome.

Service Branch

NAVY

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

19-00 247

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26003094
Decision Date: 03/06/26 Archive Date: 03/06/26

DOCKET NO. 19-00 247
DATE: March 6, 2026

ORDER

New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy is reopened.

New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is reopened.

Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy, is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. An August 2014 Board decision denied service connection for an eye disorder, claimed as presbyopia and retinopathy; the Veteran submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim.

2. An August 2014 Board decision denied service connection for an eye disorder, claimed as dry eye syndrome; the Veteran submitted new and material evidence sufficient to reopen his claim.

3. The Veteran's presbyopia is not a disability for which service connection may be granted and the Veteran does not have a current disability of retinopathy during the period on appeal.

4. Dry eye syndrome was not incurred in or is otherwise etiologically related to active service, including herbicide and other chemical exposures; and was not aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of service-connected diabetes.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

1. The criteria for service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

2. The criteria for service connection for dry eye syndrome have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 1116, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.307, 3.309, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Navy from September 1965 to August 1969. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Vietnam Service Medal and Vietnam Campaign Medal.

These matters are before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2018 rating decision by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran testified during an August 2022 virtual hearing. A transcript of this proceeding has been associated with the record.

These appeals were previously before the Board in October 2022, January 2024, and most recently in October 2025 and the matters were remanded for additional development, which has since been completed. The Board finds the remand directives have been complied with and the issues can move forward for adjudication. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998). Specifically, an October 2025 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) was issued in response to the October 2025 Board remand.

Of note, during the course of the appeal, two April 2023 rating decisions granted service connection for CAD, diabetes, and hypertension. A July 2023 rating decision recharacterized the award of diabetes to include right eye cataracts and left eye pseudophakia. Initially, the Veteran had filed his claim to reopen a claim for service connection for eye disorders, to include presbyopia, cataracts, retinopathy, and dry eye syndrome. Service connection has been granted for diabetes to include right eye cataracts and left eye pseudophakia. Therefore, the award of service connection fully satisfied the benefits sought on appeal. See Grantham v. Brown, 114 F.3d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board). However, the issues of entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy and dry eye syndrome remain on appeal and will be addressed in this decision.

New and Material Evidence

1. New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy is reopened.

2. New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is reopened.

Rating actions are final and binding based on evidence on file at the time the claimant is notified
d 1156 (Fed. Cir. 1997)(noting that a grant of service connection extinguishes appeals before the Board). However, the issues of entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy and dry eye syndrome remain on appeal and will be addressed in this decision.

New and Material Evidence

1. New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy is reopened.

2. New and material evidence having been submitted, the claim of entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is reopened.

Rating actions are final and binding based on evidence on file at the time the claimant is notified of the decision and may not be revised on the same factual basis except by a duly constituted appellate authority. 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(a).

Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed Board decision or an unappealed AOJ decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(b), 7105(c). The exception to this rule is 38 U.S.C. § 5108, which provides that if new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim.

New evidence means existing evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers. Material evidence means existing evidence that, by itself or when considered with previous evidence of record, relates to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim. New and material evidence can be neither cumulative nor redundant of the evidence of record at the time of the last prior final denial of the claim sought to be reopened and must raise a reasonable possibility of substantiating the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a).

In this case, the Veteran's previous claim for entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder was denied in an August 2014 Board decision on the basis that the evidence of record did not indicate the eye disorder was shown during active service and there was no evidence of an association of his eye disorders and active service. The Veteran did not initiate an appeal as to this decision, nor was new and material evidence submitted within a year of that decision. The August 2014 decision is thus final.

Accordingly, in order to reopen this claim, the Veteran submitted lay statements, testified at his Board hearing in August 2022, and VA treatment records and VA examinations have been associated with the claims file. The Veteran also raised other theories of entitlement to service connection.

Considering that the Veteran's claim for service connection was previously denied, in part, on the basis that there was no in-service and no nexus, this new evidence relates directly to one of the reasons underlying the previous denial and raises new theories of entitlement to service connection. Thus, the Board finds that new and material evidence has been received is sufficient to reopen his previously denied claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a); Shade v. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 110, 117-18.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted directly as a result of disease or injury incurred in service based on nexus using a three-element test: (1) The existence of a current disability; (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the present disability and the disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by service. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(a), (d); Holton v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1363, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Service connection may also be warranted on a secondary basis for a disability which is aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disease or injury under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

Presumptive service connection is available: (i) Where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury is shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); or (ii) where a condition is noted in service
5). In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

Presumptive service connection is available: (i) Where a chronic disease or injury is shown in service and subsequent manifestations of the same disease or injury is shown at a later date unless clearly attributable to an intercurrent cause under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); or (ii) where a condition is noted in service but is not chronic or where chronicity may be legitimately question and there are continuity of symptomatology but only for specific chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a); or (iii) with certain chronic diseases listed in 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309(a) by showing that the disorder manifested itself to a degree of 10 percent or more within one year from the date of separation from service.

When all the evidence is assembled, VA is responsible for determining whether the evidence supports the claim or is in approximate balance, with the veteran prevailing in either event, or whether the weight of the evidence is against a claim, in which case, the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 3.102.

3. Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy, is denied.

The Veteran filed his claim seeking entitlement to service connection for cataracts, diabetic retinopathy secondary to diabetes, presbyopia secondary to diabetes, and dry eye syndrome secondary to diabetes. The Veteran also contends he was exposed to herbicide agents in-service and he believes that caused his eye disabilities.

As noted above, cataracts were previously considered with the evaluation of service connection for diabetes mellitus type II with cataracts of the right eye and pseudophakia of the left eye. The Veteran was also seeking entitlement to service connection for presbyopia. In the February 2018 rating decision and November 2018 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) stated that presbyopia is a refractive error. The rating decision and SSOC further stated that refractive errors are due to anomalies in the shape and conformation of the eye and are generally congenital or developmental in origin and these types of issues are not considered disabilities for service connection.

Congenital or developmental defects, such as refractive error of the eye, are not diseases or injuries for which service connection may be granted. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303(c), 4.9; Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996). Thus, absent a superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be granted for refractive error of the eyes, including presbyopia, even if visual acuity decreased in service.

The Veteran was also seeking entitlement to service connection for retinopathy. The Veteran initially was seeking entitlement to service connection for retinopathy secondary to diabetes. In his NOD and VA treatment records, the Veteran also raised the contention that his eye conditions are a result of his exposure to herbicide agents during his active service.

Service connection may be warranted on a secondary basis for a disability which is aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disease or injury under 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995). In order to prevail on the issue of entitlement to secondary service connection, there must be (1) evidence of a current disability; (2) evidence of a service-connected disability; and (3) nexus evidence establishing a connection between the service-connected disability and the current disability. See Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509, 512 (1998).

In this case, the threshold inquiry is whether a current disability exists. Regrettably, a negative finding is offered in this case.

In McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007), the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) held that the requirement of the existence of a current disability is satisfied when a claimant has a disability at the time he files his claim for service connection or during the pendency of that claim, even if the disability resolves prior to adjudication of the claim. In Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289 (2013), the Court held that when the record contains a recent diagnosis of disability prior to a claimant filing a claim for benefits based on that disability, the report of diagnosis is relevant evidence that the Board must address in determining whether a current disability existed at the time the claim was filed or during its pendency.

The Board acknowledges that in the period prior to what is on appeal before the Board, the Veteran was diagnosed in 2007 with hypertension retinopathy and the VA treatment records document mild retinopathy in 2008, in 2009, his VA treatment records documented hypertension with mild retinopathy, in 2010 his records noted he had borderline diabetic retinopathy, and 2011, retinopathy was documented. However, in February 2010, the VA treatment records document the Veteran did not have retinopathy. Further, in February 2014 and March 2015 VA treatment records, the VA optometry records specifically state the Veteran did not have diabetic retinopathy. In April 2016, his VA treatment records document diabetic retinopathy. In the period shortly before the Veteran filed his claim to reopen entitlement to service connection for eye disabilities, the Veteran's VA treatment records state in April 2017 there was no sign of diabetic retinopathy.

The Board previously addressed the eye disabilities in an August 2014 decision and denied the Veteran's claim. The Board decision was final. As such, when the Veteran sought to reopen his claim in November 2017 and filed new and material evidence, the claim was reopened. Therefore, the period on appeal before the Board begins in November 2017. As such, during the period on appeal, the Veteran's VA treatment records and VA examinations specifically state he did not have a diagnosis of retinopathy during the period on appeal.

The Veteran's VA treatment records in April 2018 document no diabetic retinopathy was found during a diabetic eye examination. Additionally, his VA treatment records consistently document he did not have retinopathy from 2017 through 2024. His VA treatment records in 2025 documented he was at risk for diabetic retinopathy but no diagnosis was provided.

The Veteran underwent VA examinations for his eye disorders. In the Veteran's March 2023 VA examination for diabetes, the VA examiner documented the Veteran does not have diabetic retinopathy. The Veteran underwent a June 2023 VA examination and the examiner reported the Veteran had diabetes without retinopathy. However, the VA examination did not fully address secondary service connection. The Board remanded the matter in January 2024 for an additional opinion. A VA opinion was obtained in April 2024. The VA examiner documented there was no evidence the Veteran ever had diabetic retinopathy or retinopathy. The Veteran underwent a February 2025 VA examination for eye conditions and the VA examiner documented the Veteran did not have hypertensive retinopathy. The Veteran underwent another VA examination in June 2025 and the examiner reported there was no evidence the Veteran ever had retinopathy.

However, in the June 2025 SSOC, the AOJ stated that service connection for retinopathy was not warranted but then later stated that service connection for retinopathy had been established as related to the service connected disability of diabetes. As noted in the Board's October 2025 decision, there was no evidence to support this statement and no rating decision issued corresponding to retinopathy if it was being granted. The Board again remanded the matter to readjudicate the issue of service connection for retinopathy. Then, in October 2025, an SSOC was issued that reiterated the VA examiner reported there was no evidence of a diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy.

The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in August 2022 and stated he believes his eye conditions are secondary to diabetes. He testified that a VA doctor indicated his eye conditions were secondary to diabetes but the evidence of record contradicts this statement.

The Veteran contends he has
diabetes. As noted in the Board's October 2025 decision, there was no evidence to support this statement and no rating decision issued corresponding to retinopathy if it was being granted. The Board again remanded the matter to readjudicate the issue of service connection for retinopathy. Then, in October 2025, an SSOC was issued that reiterated the VA examiner reported there was no evidence of a diagnosis of diabetic retinopathy.

The Veteran contends he has retinopathy and that it is secondary to diabetes. However, he is not shown to possess the training and expertise to offer a competent opinion as to complex medical matters, including the existence of a current disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994).

While the Board acknowledges that prior to the period on appeal, the Veteran was diagnosed with hypertensive retinopathy, there is no subsequent evidence which suggests a current disability. Additionally, the Board addresses the June 2025 SSOC stated service connection was established for presbyopia, cataracts, retinopathy, and dry eye syndrome as related to service connected disability of diabetes. The VA treatment records and VA examinations do not contain any evidence to support a current disability of retinopathy, let alone a secondary basis for a disability that was aggravated by, proximately due to, or the result of a service-connected disability. A later October 2025 SSOC clarified the Veteran was not diagnosed with retinopathy.

Thus, the evidence weighs against the finding of a current disability. The June 2025 examination is adequate, having included an in-person evaluation and a review of the record. The examiner's findings are further supported by VA treatment records, which contain no reports of relevant diagnoses or treatment during the period on appeal. Accordingly, a current disability is not found.

Briefly, the Board has also contemplated whether a current disability may be found upon the precedent of Saunders v. Wilkie, 886 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018), but does not find sufficient evidence that the Veteran reported pain and therefore it does not result in functional impairment of earning capacity. Thus, the standard of Saunders is not met and a current disability is not established on this basis.

As the first element of service connection is not met, further analysis into the remaining criteria is rendered moot. The evidence is not in approximate balance and there is no reasonable doubt to resolve in favor of the Veteran.

In sum, the appeal seeking service connection for an eye disorder, to include presbyopia and retinopathy, is hereby denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is denied.

The Veteran was diagnosed with dry eye syndrome in the VA examinations and VA treatment records routinely document his history of dry eye syndrome and treatment therefor. Thus, the first element of both direct and secondary service connection is met.

The Board notes that dry eye syndrome is not among the diseases for which the Secretary has determined that presumptive service connection is warranted based on herbicide exposure. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.309 (e). Thus, while the Board has conceded that the Veteran was exposed to herbicides during active duty, there is no basis in the record of VA's regulations to presume service connection for the Veteran's claimed dry eye syndrome.

The Federal Circuit has held that when a claimed disorder is not warranted on a presumptive basis, direct service connection may nevertheless be established by evidence demonstrating that the disease was in fact "incurred" during service. See Combee v. Brown, 34 F.3d 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1994).

Regarding the second element, the Veteran attributes his dry eye syndrome to claimed in-service exposure to herbicides and other chemicals due to his military occupational specialty (MOS) as an aircraft mechanic. To that end, a December 2022 VA memorandum concedes the Veteran's herbicide exposure due to presence in Vietnam. His DD Form 214 also corroborates his MOS as an aircraft mechanic, which would put the Veteran in the presence of aircraft-related chemicals including fuel.

Additionally, the Veteran asserts a relationship between his dry eye syndrome and diabetes; for which he is currently service connected. Thus, the second element of direct and secondary service connection are also met.

Accordingly, the appeal may be granted upon the finding of a direct or secondary nexus between the Veteran
the Veteran attributes his dry eye syndrome to claimed in-service exposure to herbicides and other chemicals due to his military occupational specialty (MOS) as an aircraft mechanic. To that end, a December 2022 VA memorandum concedes the Veteran's herbicide exposure due to presence in Vietnam. His DD Form 214 also corroborates his MOS as an aircraft mechanic, which would put the Veteran in the presence of aircraft-related chemicals including fuel.

Accordingly, the appeal may be granted upon the finding of a direct or secondary nexus between the Veteran's dry eye syndrome, military service, and/or service-connected diabetes.

The Veteran's VA treatment records document a diagnosis and ongoing treatment for his dry eye syndrome during the period on appeal. In April 2022 VA treatment records, the Veteran asked his VA optometrist about service connection related to compensation and if his exposure to herbicide agents could be connected to his dry eye syndrome diagnosis. His VA optometrist stated he was unable to assess a connection between dry eye syndrome and herbicide agents.

The Veteran underwent multiple VA examinations for his eye contentions. The June 2023 VA examination documented a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome in both eyes. The VA examiner documented the condition has mainly stayed the same and his current symptoms include blurry vision, dry, and irritated eyes. The VA examiner concluded it was less likely than not the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was caused by or a result of his service connected type II diabetes. The VA examiner stated the Veteran's dry eye symptoms are more likely environmental and age related, not due to type II diabetes. The June 2023 VA examination failed to address the element of aggravation under secondary service connection.

A VA opinion was obtained in April 2024 and the VA examiner concluded the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness and less likely than not proximately due to or the result of the Veteran's service connected diabetes. The VA examiner states that dry eye is often an age related condition and based on the Veteran's age at onset, it is unlikely that it was caused by his time in-service or due to his service connected diabetes. The VA examiner also concluded the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was not aggravated beyond its natural progression as it is most likely age or environment related. The VA examiner reported there is no evidence it was aggravated beyond its natural progression.

The Veteran underwent a VA examination in February 2025 which again confirmed a diagnosis of dry eye syndrome in both eyes. The VA examiner concluded the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was less likely than not caused by or the result of his service connected diabetes. The VA examiner stated there is insufficient medical literature linking dry eye syndrome to diabetes. The VA examiner cited to a website from National Institute of Health (NIH) regarding health information of diabetes and diabetic eye disease.

As a May 2025 Toxic Exposure Risk Activity (TERA) memo was issued, confirming the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents in-service, a VA examination was obtained in February 2025 to determine if the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was caused by toxic exposure after considering the total potential exposure through all applicable military deployments of the Veteran and the synergistic combined effect of all toxic exposure risk activities of the Veteran. The VA examiner concluded the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The VA examiner stated there is no evidence of an in-service incident or trauma to the eye and there was no evidence of aggravation or injury in-service for a connection to his dry eye syndrome. The VA examiner concluded the dry eye syndrome is age related.

In June 2025, the Veteran underwent another VA examination for his dry eye syndrome. The VA examiner concluded the claimed condition was less likely than not incurred in or caused by the claimed in-service injury, event, or illness. The VA examiner stated the Veteran's dry eye syndrome did not begin until well after his time in-service and it is often an age related condition. The VA examiner stated the claimed condition was less likely than not caused by the indicated TERA after considering the total potential exposure. The VA examiner concluded the dry eye syndrome was less likely than not caused by the TERA, including herbicide exposure in addition to solvents, cleaning agents, fuel, and adhesives. The VA examiner stated these exposures are not likely to cause dry eyes with an onset decades after service. The VA examiner again concluded the diagnosis is more likely an age-related finding.

The negative VA opinions are probative evidence against the appeal and
, or illness. The VA examiner stated the Veteran's dry eye syndrome did not begin until well after his time in-service and it is often an age related condition. The VA examiner stated the claimed condition was less likely than not caused by the indicated TERA after considering the total potential exposure. The VA examiner concluded the dry eye syndrome was less likely than not caused by the TERA, including herbicide exposure in addition to solvents, cleaning agents, fuel, and adhesives. The VA examiner stated these exposures are not likely to cause dry eyes with an onset decades after service. The VA examiner again concluded the diagnosis is more likely an age-related finding.

The negative VA opinions are probative evidence against the appeal and they are adequate for rating purposes. The VA examiners offered definitive nexus opinions with supporting rationales and contemplate the Veteran's in-service herbicide and other chemical exposures, the onset of his dry eye syndrome, and the absence of evidence speaking to aggravation of dry eye syndrome by diabetes. See Prejean v. West, 13 Vet. App. 444, 448-49 (2000); see also Nieves-Rodriguez v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 295, 302-04 (2008) (holding that the probative value of a medical opinion comes from the "factually accurate, fully articulated, sound reasoning for the conclusion").

The Board acknowledges the June 2025 SSOC stated that service connection for dry eye syndrome was not warranted but later noted service connection for dry eye syndrome had been established as related to the service connected disability of diabetes. As noted in the Board's October 2025 decision, there was no evidence to support this statement and no rating decision issued corresponding to dry eye syndrome. The Board again remanded the matter in October 2025 to readjudicate the issue of service connection for dry eye syndrome. Then, in an October 2025 SSOC, the AOJ reiterated the VA examiner reported the Veteran was not diagnosed with dry eye syndrome until 2007 per his VA treatment records, which is well after his time in-service, and stated dry eye is often related to aging. The SSOC also reported the VA examiner stated the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was not due to his diabetes or aggravated beyond its natural progression. The SSOC stated entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome remained denied.

The Veteran testified at a Board hearing in August 2022 and stated he believed his eye conditions are secondary to diabetes. He testified that a VA doctor indicated his eye conditions were secondary to diabetes. The evidence of record does not support this contention.

The Veteran is not shown to possess the training and expertise to offer a competent opinion as to complex medical matters, to relate his disability to his active service, including exposure to various chemicals or relation to any other disability. Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-77 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 469 (1994). As such, his lay statement concerning nexus between his claimed disability and active service, to include exposure to various chemicals or any other disability and his contention that his dry eye syndrome is related to his service connected diabetes does not constitute competent medical evidence and lacks probative value.

The Board finds the VA opinions directly contemplate all theories of entitlement as presented by the Veteran and are offered in accordance with the standards established for the finding of a nexus. Notably, there is no competent opinion which contradicts the examiners' negative opinions. In relying on these medical opinions, the Board concludes that the Veteran's dry eye syndrome is not etiologically related to service, including in-service herbicide and other chemical exposures, and was not caused or aggravated by diabetes. Thus, the third and final elements of direct and secondary service connection are not met.

Accordingly, the persuasive evidence of record is against the Veteran's claim; the evidence is not in approximate balance, and the benefit of the doubt rule is inapplicable. Thus, entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is denied.

Evan M. Deichert

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Mouzakis, 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.

. Thus, entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome is denied.

Evan M. Deichert

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board J. Mouzakis, Counsel

Analyze in VA Law Explorer