DISEASES OF CONJUNCTIVA KERATITIS AND CORNEAL OPACITIES

FREDERIC P. GALLUN · 2026 · Case ID: 26004774

GRANTED

Summary

The Veteran, a Veteran who served from July 1961 to July 1965, including service in Thailand, appeals the denial of service connection for a dry eye syndrome. This case was previously remanded by the Board in January 2025. The Board found that previous VA examinations were inadequate. In January 2026, a VA examiner provided a negative opinion regarding the Veteran's dry eyes but acknowledged that UV radiation can contribute to dry eye syndrome. The Board determined that further remands for additional opinions would be impermissible, as it could be construed as an attempt to obtain evidence against the appellant's case. Applying the benefit of the doubt, the Board found the examiner's statement regarding UV radiation's contribution to dry eye syndrome to be probative. Consequently, service connection for dry eye syndrome is granted, with the Board resolving the benefit of the doubt in the Veteran's favor and finding the condition was caused by UV radiation exposure in service.

Rationale

Benefit of the doubt resolved in Veteran's favor; UV radiation identified as cause; VA examiner's statement found probative despite negative opinion

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

13-04 633

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: 26004774
Decision Date: 04/21/26 Archive Date: 04/21/26

DOCKET NO. 13-04 633
DATE: April 21, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an eye disability is granted.

FINDING OF FACT

Resolving the benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Veteran's dry eye syndrome was caused by UV radiation in service.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for service connection for dry eye syndrome are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from July 1961 to July 1965, including service in Thailand. The Board recognizes the Veteran's service to our country and the sacrifices it necessarily entailed.

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2010 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

This issue was most recently remanded by the Board in January 2025 and has since returned for further adjudication.

Resolving the benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran, the Board finds that service connection for dry eye syndrome is warranted.

Service connection will be granted if the evidence demonstrates a current disability resulted from an injury or disease incurred in or aggravated by active military service, even if the disability was initially diagnosed after service. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(a). Establishing service connection generally requires (1) medical evidence of a current disability; (2) medical or, in certain circumstances, lay 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). Service connection may be granted for any disease initially diagnosed after service when all the evidence, including pertinent to service, establishes the disease was incurred in service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(d).

The Veteran has undergone numerous VA examinations, all of which the Board has previously found inadequate in one way or other. At this point, a request for another opinion could be construed as obtaining additional evidence for the sole purpose of denying a claim, which is impermissible. 38 C.F.R. § 3.304(c) ("The development of evidence in connection with claims for service connection will be accomplished when deemed necessary but it should not be undertaken when evidence present is sufficient for this determination"); Andrews v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 216, 225 (2021) ("Remand is inappropriate where the predominant purpose is not to allow the Board to make a fully informed decision unencumbered by error but to allow VA to obtain more evidence so that it can properly deny the claim"); Gardner-Dickson v. Wilkie, 33 Vet. App. 50, 62 (2020) (Order), aff'd per curiam sub nom. Gardner-Dickson v. McDonough, Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2021 (Order) (denying petition for a writ of mandamus challenging a remand, but agreeing "with the petitioner that it 'would not be permissible for VA to undertake... additional development if a purpose was to obtain evidence against an appellant's case.'") (citing Mariano v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 305, 312 (2003) and Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505, 508 (2007)).

The Board last remanded this claim in January 2025 to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran has any eye disability resulting from UV radiation or herbicide agent exposure. See BVA Decision, January 2025.

In January 2026, a VA examiner provided a negative opinion regarding the Veteran's dry eyes. See C&P Exam, January 2026. However, the examiner stated that UV radiation (sunlight) can contribute to dry eye syndrome. The Board will not waste the Veteran's time by remanding his claim for yet another opinion that does not adequately address all contentions. The Board finds this statement probative enough to support the Veteran's claim that he developed an eye disability due to his military service based on exposure to UV radiation. Based on this statement, the Board resolves the benefit of the doubt in favor of the Veteran to find service connection for
agent exposure. See BVA Decision, January 2025.

Frederic P. Gallun

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board M.H., 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.

Analyze in VA Law Explorer