Case A25070573

DANETTE MINCEY · 2025 · Case ID: A25070573

DENIED

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the United States Air Force from July 1967 to August 1971, appeals the denial of service connection for high cholesterol, a seizure condition, a skin condition, and bilateral vision loss. The appeal for high cholesterol was withdrawn by the Veteran and dismissed by the Board. For the seizure condition, the Board acknowledged favorable findings from the agency of original jurisdiction regarding a diagnosed seizure disorder and conceded Toxic Risk Activity (TERA) participation in Thailand due to herbicide exposure. However, the Board found that the evidence persuasively weighed against a nexus between the seizure and service, noting the seizure occurred during recovery from a stroke unrelated to service, and the VA examiner opined it was less likely than not related to TERA. For the skin condition (rash), similar favorable findings regarding diagnosis and TERA participation were acknowledged, but the Board found the evidence weighed against a nexus, citing the rash's late manifestation and lack of in-service complaints or treatment, with the VA examiner opining it was less likely than not related to TERA. For bilateral vision loss (hemianopia, cataracts, lattice degeneration), the Board acknowledged favorable findings for the diagnoses and TERA participation but denied service connection. The Board noted hypermetropia and presbyopia are congenital and not ratable. For the remaining conditions, the Board found no positive association between eye diseases and herbicide exposure, and the evidence weighed against a nexus to service or bright light exposure. All claims were denied.

Rationale

Appellant withdrew appeal; Explicit, unambiguous withdrawal with understanding of consequences

Service Branch

AIR FORCE

Special Benefit

NO SPECIAL BENEFIT

Docket No.

241028-486127

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A25070573
Decision Date: 08/20/25 Archive Date: 08/20/25

DOCKET NO. 241028-486127
DATE: August 20, 2025

ORDER

The appeal for entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for a seizure condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vision loss, to include bilateral incomplete hemianopia, bilateral cataracts, and lattice degeneration of the right eye, is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. On April 9, 2025, prior to the promulgation of a decision in the appeal, during a hearing concerning the instant appeal, the Veteran requested that the appeal for entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol be withdrawn.

2. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's seizure condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

3. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's skin condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

4. The evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's bilateral vision loss began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service injury or disease.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for withdrawal of the appeal for entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol by the appellant have been met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.205.

2. The criteria for service connection for a seizure condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

3. The criteria for service connection for a skin condition are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

4. The criteria for service connection for bilateral vision loss are not met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 1131, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from July 1967 until honorable discharge in August 1971.

In June 2023, the Veteran filed VA Form 21-526EZ, Fully Developed Claim, seeking service connection for multiple issues, including high cholesterol, a seizure, a skin condition, and bilateral vision loss. In a September 2023 rating decision, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), acting as the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ), denied the respective claims. The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) automatically applies to all claims for which VA issues notice of an initial decision on or after February 19, 2019. See 38?C.F.R. §?3.2400(a)(1). Here, the September 2023 rating decision constitutes an initial decision, and the AMA applies.

In May 2024, the Veteran filed VA Form 20-0996, Request for Higher-Level Review (HLR), seeking a review of the September 2023 rating decision which denied service connection for high cholesterol, a seizure, a skin condition, and bilateral vision loss. In August 2024, the AOJ issued a HLR decision which continued the previous denials.

The Veteran timely appealed this decision to the?Board of Veterans' Appeals?(Board) via a September 2024 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement (NOD)). The Veteran elected to place this appeal on the Hearing docket. A Board hearing was held on April 9, 2025. The appeal is properly before the Board.

The Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the September 2023 AOJ decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or representative, at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the
, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran, or representative, at the hearing or within 90 days following the hearing. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a). If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, which was subsequently subject to higher-level review and prior to the Board hearing, or (2) more than 90 days following the hearing, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(a), 20.801.

If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim (VA Form 20-0995) 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 claims, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

Withdrawal of an Appeal

The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege specific error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105. An appeal may be withdrawn as to any or all issues involved in the appeal at any time before the Board promulgates a decision. 38 C.F.R. § 20.205. Withdrawal may be made by the appellant or an authorized representative. Id. An oral withdrawal of an appeal, such as one made at a hearing, must be (1) explicit, (2) unambiguous, and (3) done with a full understanding of the consequences of such action on the part of the claimant. DeLisio v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45, 57 (2011); see Acree v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1009, 1014 (Fed. Cir. 2018).

1. The appeal for entitlement to service connection for high cholesterol is dismissed.

In the present case, the appellant, along with his authorized representative, has withdrawn the appeal concerning service connection for high cholesterol, hence, there remain no allegations of errors of fact or law for appellate consideration. On April 9, 2025, during a prehearing conference, prior to going on the record, the Veteran indicated a desire to withdraw the claim for service connection for high cholesterol. Hearing Transcript, April 2025. After formally commencing the hearing and administering the oath to the Veteran, the undersigned Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) asked the Veteran's representative to formally withdraw the claim. Id. The Veteran's representative formally requested to withdraw the issue of service connection for high cholesterol. Id. The undersigned VLJ asked the Veteran's representative if she had discussed this issue fully with the Veteran; the representative responded that she had Id. The undersigned VLJ asked the Veteran if he understood the ramification of withdrawing this claim; the Veteran responded that he did. The Board finds that the Veteran's oral request to withdraw the appeal of service connection for high cholesterol was explicit, unambiguous, and done with full understanding of the consequences of this action. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the appeal, and it is dismissed.

Service Connection

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from disease or injury incurred in or aggravated by active service. 38?U.S.C. §§?1110, 1131, 5107; 38?C.F.R. §?3.303. The three-element test for service connection requires evidence of: (1)?a current disability; (2)?in-service incurrence or aggravation of a disease or injury; and (3) a causal relationship between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1166 -67 (Fed. Cir. 2004).???

Service connection may be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disability. 38?C.F.R. §?3.310(a). To establish secondary service connection there must be evidence: (1) of a current disability (for which secondary service connection is sought); (2) of an already service-connected disability; and (3) that the current disability for which service connection is sought was either (a) caused or (b) aggravated by the service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a); see Allen v. Brown, 7?Vet. App.?439 (1995) (
Cir. 2004).???

Certain chronic diseases will be presumed related to service, absent an intercurrent cause, if they were shown as chronic in service; or, if they manifested to a compensable degree within a presumptive period following separation from service; or, if they were noted in service (or within an applicable presumptive period) with continuity of symptomatology since service that is attributable to the chronic disease. 38?U.S.C. §§?1101, 1112, 1113, 1137; 38?C.F.R. §§?3.303, 3.307, 3.309. Walker v. Shinseki, 708 F.3d 1331, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2013).

The Federal Circuit Court has held that VA has a duty to consider all theories of entitlement when determining eligibility for compensation. Szemraj v. Principi,?357 F.3d 1370, 1373?(Fed. Cir. 2004); See also Robinson v. Shinseki,?557 F.3d 1355, 1361?(Fed. Cir. 2009) (VA is required to consider all theories of entitlement raised either by the claimant or by the evidence of record as part of the non-adversarial administrative adjudication process).

2. Entitlement to service connection for a seizure condition is denied.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a seizure condition as a result of his military service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his seizure condition was caused by his exposure to herbicide agents during military service. Fully Developed Claim, June 2023. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that his seizure condition is secondary to his previously service-connected diabetes mellitus or his previously service-connected hypertension. Hearing Transcript, April 2025.

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the AOJ made favorable findings in the August 2024 rating decision that are relevant: the AOJ found that the Veteran has a diagnosed seizure condition, and the AOJ conceded that the Veteran's service in Thailand constituted participation in a Toxic Risk Activity (TERA). Specifically, the AOJ conceded that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents via his TERA participation. The Board is bound by the AOJ's favorable findings, absent clear and unmistakable error (CUE).?38 C.F.R. § 3.104?(c). These findings are supported by the evidentiary record. There is no CUE present, and the Board will not upset the AOJ's findings.

Thus, the first and second elements of service connection, a current disability and an in-service event or injury that may constitute an in-service incurrence of said disability, respectively, are met. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the July 2023 VA medical examination, confirms that the Veteran has a diagnosed disability. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the Veteran's DD-214, confirms the Veteran's service in Thailand, which constitutes presumptive exposure to herbicide agents as contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The first and second elements of service connection are met.

That said, seizures are not a condition that is subject to presumptive service connection as contemplated in 38?C.F.R. §?3.309. Thus, service connection cannot be established on a presumptive basis. However, while the condition is not subject to presumptive service connection, it may still qualify for direct service connection, if the record establishes all of the necessary elements.

The remaining question for the Board is the third element of service connection, whether there is a causal relationship, a so-called nexus, between the Veteran's diagnosed seizure and his conceded TERA participation during military service. The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's seizure is related to an in-service injury or disease.

The Veteran's service treatment record is silent as to any complaints or treatment for any condition related to a seizure. The medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran had a stroke, or cerebrovascular accident (CVA), in December 2018, and
is not subject to presumptive service connection, it may still qualify for direct service connection, if the record establishes all of the necessary elements.

The Veteran's service treatment record is silent as to any complaints or treatment for any condition related to a seizure. The medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran had a stroke, or cerebrovascular accident (CVA), in December 2018, and had a seizure during the recovery from said stroke. VA Medical Treatment Record, December 2018.

The Veteran underwent a VA medical examination in July 2023 concerning the instant claim. The VA examiner noted the Veteran's December 2018 CVA, as well as the seizure during recovery from the stroke. VA Medical Examination, July 2023.

There was a single VA medical opinion associated with the July 2023 VA medical examination. In July 2023, the same individual that conducted the examination rendered a medical opinion finding that the Veteran's seizure is less likely than not related to his in-service TERA participation. VA Medical Opinion, July 2023. The VA examiner reasoned that the medical record indicates that the Veteran's seizure was a result of his CVA, not TERA participation during military service. Id.

Thus, the medical evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's seizure condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board acknowledges the Veteran's representative's contention that the Veteran's stroke was a result of the Veteran's previously service connected diabetes or hypertension, and therefore the Veteran's seizure should be secondarily service-connected. As lay persons, neither the Veteran nor his representative are competent to opine as to medical etiology or render medical opinions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?303 (2007); see Grover v. West, 12?Vet. App.?109, 112 (1999). The Board does not question the Veteran's credibility and acknowledges that he is competent to report the observable symptoms that he experiences, such as experiencing a seizure; however, his opinion, and his representative's opinion, as to the cause of these symptoms, cannot be accepted as competent evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1131, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran's seizure is a result of his CVA, separate and distinct from military service. There is no medical evidence in the record that suggests the Veteran's CVA was caused by a previously service-connected condition. The competent medical and lay evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's seizure condition began during active service or is otherwise related to the Veteran's military service. Accordingly, service connection must be denied.

3. Entitlement to service connection for a skin condition is denied.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for a skin condition as a result of his military service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his skin conditions was caused by his exposure to herbicide agents during military service. Fully Developed Claim, June 2023.

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the AOJ made favorable findings in the August 2024 rating decision that are relevant: the AOJ found that the Veteran has a diagnosed skin condition, a rash, and the AOJ conceded that the Veteran's service in Thailand constituted participation in a Toxic Risk Activity (TERA). Specifically, the AOJ conceded that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents via his TERA participation. The Board is bound by the AOJ's favorable findings, absent clear and unmistakable error (CUE).?38 C.F.R. § 3.104?(c). These findings are supported by the evidentiary record. There is no CUE present, and the Board will not upset the AOJ's findings.

Thus, the first and second elements of service connection, a current disability and an in-service event or injury that may constitute an in-service incurrence of said disability, respectively, are met. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the July 2023 VA medical examination, confirms that the Veteran has a diagnosed disability, a rash. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the Veteran's DD-214, confirms the Veteran's service in Thailand, which constitutes presumptive exposure to herbicide agents as contemplated in 38 C.F.R.
.R. § 3.104?(c). These findings are supported by the evidentiary record. There is no CUE present, and the Board will not upset the AOJ's findings.

Thus, the first and second elements of service connection, a current disability and an in-service event or injury that may constitute an in-service incurrence of said disability, respectively, are met. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the July 2023 VA medical examination, confirms that the Veteran has a diagnosed disability, a rash. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the Veteran's DD-214, confirms the Veteran's service in Thailand, which constitutes presumptive exposure to herbicide agents as contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The first and second elements of service connection are met.

That said, the Veteran's rash is not a condition that is subject to presumptive service connection as contemplated in 38?C.F.R. §?3.309. Thus, service connection cannot be established on a presumptive basis. However, while the condition is not subject to presumptive service connection, it may still qualify for direct service connection, if the record establishes all of the necessary elements.

The remaining question for the Board is the third element of service connection, whether there is a causal relationship, a so-called nexus, between the Veteran's diagnosed skin condition and his conceded TERA participation during military service. The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's rash is related to an in-service injury or disease.

The Veteran's service treatment record is silent as to any complaints or treatment for any condition related to a rash. The medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran sought treatment for "skin lesions on back" in February 2019 through September 2022. VA Medical Treatment Record, February 2019 - September 2022. The record indicates that the Veteran's provider did not believe any lesions required a biopsy, and that the Veteran should treat the lesions with Eucerin cream to address itching. VA Medical Treatment Record, September 2022.

The Veteran underwent a VA medical examination in July 2023 concerning the instant claim. The VA examiner noted the Veteran had a rash on his back consisting of "scattered areas of hyperpigmentation to posterior trunk and scattered areas of hypopigmentation to right lower extremity. VA Medical Examination, July 2023.

There was a single VA medical opinion associated with the July 2023 VA medical examination. In July 2023, the same individual that conducted the examination rendered a medical opinion finding that the Veteran's rash is less likely than not related to his in-service TERA participation. VA Medical Opinion, July 2023. The VA examiner reasoned that the Veteran's rash manifested some 50 years after the claimed exposure during military service, and that there is "no medical or scientific evidence available that provides any indication of a relationship between the development of the [Veteran's rash] at issue and the [conceded TERA participation during military service.]" Id.

Thus, the medical evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's skin condition began during active service or is otherwise related to an in-service exposure to herbicide agents.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran believes his skin condition is a result of his TERA participation in service. As lay person, the Veteran is not competent to opine as to medical etiology or render medical opinions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?303 (2007); see Grover v. West, 12?Vet. App.?109, 112 (1999). The Board does not question the Veteran's credibility and acknowledges that he is competent to report the observable symptoms that he experiences, such as itching and flaking of a rash; however, his opinion as to the cause of these symptoms cannot be accepted as competent evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1131, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

The competent medical and lay evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's skin condition began during active service or is otherwise related to the Veteran's military service. Accordingly, service connection must be denied.

4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vision loss, to include bilateral incomplete hemianopia, bilateral cataracts, and lattice degeneration of the right eye, is denied.

The Veteran contends that he is entitled to service connection for bilateral vision loss as a result of his military service. Specifically, the Veteran contends that his vision loss was caused by his exposure to herbicide agents during military service. Fully Developed Claim, June 2023. Alternatively, the Veteran contends that
1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

4. Entitlement to service connection for bilateral vision loss, to include bilateral incomplete hemianopia, bilateral cataracts, and lattice degeneration of the right eye, is denied.

As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the AOJ made favorable findings in the August 2024 rating decision that are relevant: 1) the AOJ found that the Veteran has diagnoses of bilateral hypermetropia and presbyopia, which cause vision loss; 2) the AOJ found that the Veteran has a diagnosis bilateral incomplete hemianopia of; 3) the AOJ found that the Veteran has a diagnosis of cataracts and lattice degeneration of the right eye, and; 4) the AOJ conceded that the Veteran's service in Thailand constituted participation in a Toxic Risk Activity (TERA). Specifically, the AOJ conceded that the Veteran was exposed to herbicide agents via his TERA participation. The Board is bound by the AOJ's favorable findings, absent clear and unmistakable error (CUE).?38 C.F.R. § 3.104?(c). These findings are supported by the evidentiary record. There is no CUE present, and the Board will not upset the AOJ's findings.

Turning first to the hypermetropia and presbyopia, service connection is not warranted for these conditions as they are congenital conditions and not considered a disability for VA purposes. VA regulations prohibit service connection for congenital or developmental defects and specifically include refractive errors of the eye in this definition. 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(c). The Veteran's refractive errors are therefore not a disease for VA compensation purposes. Id; see also 38 C.F.R. § 4.9; Winn v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 510, 516 (1996).

In the absence of a superimposed disease or injury, service connection may not be granted for congenital defects of the eyes, even if visual acuity decreased in service, as these are not diseases or injuries within the meaning of applicable legislation relating to service connection. Thus, service connection is only possible for the Veteran's refractive error if the congenital defect was subjected to a superimposed disease or injury which created additional disability. See VAOPGCPREC 82-90, 55 Fed. Reg. 45711 (July 18, 1990).

Turning to the Veteran's bilateral incomplete left hemianopia, bilateral cataracts, and lattice degeneration of the right eye, the first and second elements of service connection are met. The AOJ's favorable finding and the Veteran's VA treatment record confirm that the Veteran has current diagnoses of bilateral incomplete left hemianopia, bilateral cataracts, and lattice degeneration of the right eye. VA Treatment Record, January 2023. The first element is met. The AOJ's favorable finding, supported by the Veteran's DD-214, confirms the Veteran's service in Thailand, which constitutes presumptive exposure to herbicide agents as contemplated in 38 C.F.R. § 3.307. The second element is met.

That said, bilateral incomplete left hemianopia, bilateral cataracts, and lattice degeneration of the right eye are not conditions that are subject to presumptive service connection as contemplated in 38?C.F.R. §?3.309. Thus, service connection cannot be established on a presumptive basis. However, while the condition is not subject to presumptive service connection, it may still qualify for direct service connection, if the record establishes all of the necessary elements.

The remaining question for the Board is the third element of service connection, whether there is a causal relationship, a so-called nexus, between the Veteran's vision loss and his conceded TERA participation during military service. The Board finds that the evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's vision loss is related to an in-service injury or disease, or otherwise related to military service.

The Veteran's service treatment record is silent as to any complaints or treatment for any eye condition. The medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran had a stroke, or CVA, in December 2018. VA Medical Treatment Record, December
ptive service connection, it may still qualify for direct service connection, if the record establishes all of the necessary elements.

The Veteran's service treatment record is silent as to any complaints or treatment for any eye condition. The medical evidence of record indicates that the Veteran had a stroke, or CVA, in December 2018. VA Medical Treatment Record, December 2018. The Veteran's VA treatment record indicates that the cause of his bilateral left incomplete hemianopia is said stroke. VA Medical Treatment Record, January 2023. The medical record before the Board does not contain any evidence of a causal relationship between the Veteran's bilateral cataracts or lattice degeneration of the right eye and his military service.

The Secretary has determined that diseases of the eye have no positive association with herbicide exposure. As such, these disabilities fall within an exception to the TERA examination and opinion requirement of the Sergeant First Class Heath Robinson Honoring our Promise to Address Comprehensive Toxins Act of 2022 (PACT Act). VBA Letter 20-24-06, Exception to TERA Examination and Medical Opinion Requirement at pages 9-13 (June 12, 2024). VA has determined, based on cumulative scientific data reported by the National Academy of Sciences since 1993, that diseases of the eye, which would include cataracts and lattice degeneration, have no positive association with herbicide exposure. Id. Accordingly, no TERA examination or opinion is required pursuant to the PACT Act.

The Board acknowledges that the Veteran believes his vision loss is a result of his TERA participation in service or his exposure to bright light during service. In the April 2025 hearing, the Veteran stated that a treating physician indicated his vision loss may be related to exposure to bright light. However, the record before the Board does not contain any such evidence, and the Veteran did not provide any such opinion. As lay person, the Veteran is not competent to opine as to medical etiology or render medical opinions. Barr v. Nicholson, 21?Vet. App.?303 (2007); see Grover v. West, 12?Vet. App.?109, 112 (1999). The Board does not question the Veteran's credibility and acknowledges that he is competent to report the observable symptoms that he experiences, such vision loss; however, his opinion as to the cause of these symptoms, cannot be accepted as competent evidence. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1376-1377 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Buchanan v. Nicholson, 451 F.3d 1131, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

(Continued on the next page)

The evidence of record indicates that the Veteran's vision loss is attributable, in part, to his CVA. Additionally, based on the Secretary's determination that diseases of the eye have no positive association with herbicide exposure, a nexus cannot be established based on the Veteran's TERA participation. The Veteran's assertion that his vision loss is attributable to bright light exposure during military service, absent a medical opinion asserting such a nexus, is insufficient to establish the third element of service connection.

The competent medical and lay evidence of record persuasively weighs against finding that the Veteran's vision loss began during active service or is otherwise related to the Veteran's military service. Accordingly, service connection must be denied.

Danette Mincey

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board A. T. Holtsclaw

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