CONJUNCTIVITIS

Summary

The veteran, who served from October 1963 to September 1965, appeals the denial of service connection for conjunctivitis. The veteran's claim was previously denied by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in October 1971, based on service treatment records showing treatment for pterygium but no mention of conjunctivitis at separation, despite a June 1971 VA examination diagnosing bilateral conjunctivitis. The AOJ determined there was no nexus to service. The veteran filed a Supplemental Claim in February 2025, submitting updated VA treatment records. The Board reviewed these records, noting they reflected eye consultations, cataract surgery history, diagnoses of refractive error and pinguecula, and prescriptions for eye drops. However, the Board found these new records did not reference conjunctivitis or indicate a link to service. Therefore, the Board concluded that no new and relevant evidence was received to warrant readjudication of the conjunctivitis claim. The appeal was denied, and the veteran was advised to file a Supplemental Claim if he wished VA to consider the new evidence.

Rationale

Service treatment records negative for conjunctivitis at separation.; June 1971 VA exam diagnosed conjunctivitis.; No nexus to service established by AOJ.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26025746
Decision Date: 03/23/26	Archive Date: 03/23/26

DOCKET NO. 250331-533750
DATE: March 23, 2026

ORDER

New and relevant evidence having not been received, readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for conjunctivitis is not warranted; the appeal is denied.

FINDING OF FACT

Evidence added to the record since the prior denial of the Veteran's claim in an October 1971 rating decision was not previously part of the actual record before the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), but does not tend to prove or disprove a matter at issue in regard to his claim for service connection conjunctivitis.

CONCLUSION OF LAW

The criteria for readjudicating the claim of entitlement to service connection for conjunctivitis have not been met.  38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.2501(a)(1).

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1963 to September 1965.  This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on an appeal from a March 2025 rating decision issued by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office under the modernized appeals system known as the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).  Later the same month, the Veteran timely appealed such rating decision to the Board by filing Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement) (VA Form 10182) and requested direct review of the evidence considered by the AOJ. 

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the March 2025 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.  If evidence was submitted during the period after the AOJ issued the decision, the Board did not consider it in its decision.  38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.301, 20.801.  If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was submitted that the Board could not consider, he 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 claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered.  Id.  Specific instructions for filing a Supplemental Claim are included with this decision.

As a final initial matter, the Board notes that, in his March 2025 VA Form 10182, he indicates that he is seeking an increased rating for his eye disorder. Here, the record reflects that he is service-connected for pterygium and, thus, he is advised that, if he wishes to file a claim for an increased rating for such disability, he may do so at the AOJ.

Whether new and relevant evidence has been received to readjudicate a claim of entitlement to service connection for conjunctivitis.

Generally, a claim which has been denied in an unappealed Board decision or unappealed AOJ decision may not thereafter be reopened and allowed.  38 U.S.C. §§ 7104(b), 7105(c).  However, if new and relevant evidence is presented or secured with respect to a supplemental claim, the Secretary shall readjudicate the claim taking into consideration all of the evidence of record.  38 U.S.C. § 5108(a); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(d).  The AMA defines "new evidence" as "evidence not previously part of the actual record before agency adjudicators" and" relevant evidence" is defined as "information that tends to prove or disprove a matter at issue in a claim."  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). 

Additionally, the VA's Adjudication Procedures Manual [M21-1] explains that, in the context of Supplemental Claims, "[n]ew evidence that affirms findings previously deemed favorable to the claimant is still relevant." See M21-1 Part X. ii.2.A.2.d. Although the Board is not bound by the M21-1, the standards provided in the M21-1 are 'relevant guidance promulgated for the purpose of facilitating the efficient and proper resolution of claims,' which the Board must consider and address as part of its duty to provide a reasoned explanation
 disprove a matter at issue in a claim."  38 C.F.R. § 3.2501(a)(1). 

Additionally, the VA's Adjudication Procedures Manual [M21-1] explains that, in the context of Supplemental Claims, "[n]ew evidence that affirms findings previously deemed favorable to the claimant is still relevant." See M21-1 Part X. ii.2.A.2.d. Although the Board is not bound by the M21-1, the standards provided in the M21-1 are 'relevant guidance promulgated for the purpose of facilitating the efficient and proper resolution of claims,' which the Board must consider and address as part of its duty to provide a reasoned explanation for its decision." Chavis v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 4, 17-18 (2021) (citing Healey v. McDonough, 33 Vet. App. 321 (2021) and Overton v. Wilkie, 30 Vet. App. 257, 264 (2018)).

By way of background, VA received the Veteran's original claim for service connection for a bilateral eye disorder in April 1971.  In an October 1971 rating decision, the AOJ considered the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) and a June 1971 VA examination.  In this regard, the AOJ observed the Veteran's STRs reflected that he was treated for left eye small pterygium in July 1964 and bilateral small pterygii in September 1964, which were excised during surgeries in August 1965.  However, the AOJ also noted that, while the June 1971 VA examination revealed a diagnosis of bilateral conjunctivitis, the Veteran's remaining STRs, to include his August 1965 separation examination, were negative for any findings referable to his eyes, to include any mention of conjunctivitis.  Thus, the AOJ determined that, as the evidence did not show that the Veteran's conjunctivitis occurred in or was caused by service, service connection for such disorder was not warranted.  

Following the issuance of such decision, the Veteran filed a Supplemental Claim in February 2025 seeking readjudication of his claim for service connection for conjunctivitis. Since the October 1971 rating decision, updated VA treatment records have been associated with the record.  While such was not previously part of the actual record before the AOJ at the time of the October 1971 rating decision, and, thus, it is new, it does not tend to prove or disprove a matter at issue in regard to the Veteran's claim for service connection for conjunctivitis. Consequently, it is not relevant.  

In this regard, such treatment records reflect the Veteran underwent eye consultations/evaluations, which noted his complaints of visual changes and his history of cataract surgery in 1965, and reflected that examination of his eyes showed that his conjunctiva was clear or he had bilateral pterygium (for which he is service-connected), revealed diagnoses of a refractive error (nuclear sclerosis) and pinguecula and was prescribed eye drops.  However, the evidence does not include any reference to conjunctivitis, or any indication that such disorder is related to his military service (i.e., the matter currently at issue).  Consequently, as new and relevant evidence has not been received, readjudication of the claim of entitlement to service connection for conjunctivitis is not warranted, and the Veteran's appeal must be denied.  

 

A. JAEGER

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Koria B. Stanton, Associate 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.