EYE IMPAIRMENT OF

Summary

The Veteran, who served in the National Guard from January 2011 to June 2011, appeals the denial of service connection for an eye disorder, cervical spine disability, lumbar spine disability, and radiculopathy. The Veteran claimed his eye disorder was due to jet fuel splashing in his face during service, but VA examinations found no residuals from the incident and diagnosed keratoconus, opining it was less likely than not related to service. A chiropractor's opinion linking the eye disorder to service was given no weight due to lack of medical rationale and the chiropractor's unqualified status. For the spine claims, the Veteran asserted in-service injuries from a motor vehicle accident and carrying heavy loads, but medical records from service showed no complaints or injuries. Post-service records indicated later onset of pain unrelated to service events. VA examinations found the spine conditions less likely than not related to service, citing lack of in-service complaints or events. The Board found the VA examiners' opinions more probative than the chiropractor's conclusory statements. The Veteran's assertions about in-service events were also found not credible due to inconsistencies with medical records. Service connection for the eye, cervical spine, lumbar spine, and radiculopathy claims were denied. The claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder was remanded for a new VA examination to determine service connection, as the initial opinion was deemed insufficient.

Rationale

VA examiners found eye disorder less likely than not related to service.; Chiropractor's opinion lacked medical rationale and qualifications.; Veteran's medical records showed no residuals from jet fuel incident.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26035176
Decision Date: 04/15/26	Archive Date: 04/15/26

DOCKET NO. 250218-524316
DATE: April 15, 2026

ORDER

Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of all four extremities is denied.

REMANDED

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's eye disorder is related to his service.

2. The evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's cervical spine disability is related to his service.

3. The evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's lumbar spine disability is related to his service.

4. The evidence is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran's radiculopathy of all four extremities is related to his service or is secondary to a service-connected disability.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria are not met to establish service connection for an eye disorder. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304.

2. The criteria are not met to establish service connection for a cervical spine disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.309.

3. The criteria are not met to establish service connection for a lumbar spine disability. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.309.

4. The criteria are not met to establish service connection for radiculopathy of all four extremities. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.303, 3.304, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran had National Guard service including active duty for training (ACDUTRA) from January 2011 to June 2011 and additional periods of inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA) as indicated by the record.

This case comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a January 2025 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO); by law, the modernized review system, governed by the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA), applies.

In a February 2025 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Evidence Submission docket. The Veteran was advised in a November 2025 correspondence that he had one year from the date the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) mailed the rating decision on appeal, or 60 days from the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, whichever is later, to switch AMA appeal dockets. Williams v. McDonough, 37 Vet. App. 305 (2024). This period has since expired and the Board will proceed with adjudication. 

Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of the January 2025 agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) rating decision on appeal, as well as any evidence submitted by the Veteran with, or within 90 days from receipt of, the VA Form 10182. 38 C.F.R. § 20.303. If evidence was submitted either (1) during the period after the AOJ issued the decision on appeal and prior to the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, or (2) more than 90 days following the date the Board received the VA Form 10182, the Board did not consider it in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 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. However, because the Board is remanding the service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, any evidence the Board
 in its decision. 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.303, 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. However, because the Board is remanding the service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder, any evidence the Board could not consider will be considered by the AOJ in the adjudication of this claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(ii). 

The Board notes that the AOJ requested the Veteran submit any relevant private treatment records or submit information with which VA can assist the Veteran in obtaining private treatment records. Required notice and information were provided in the claim form which the Veteran signed, certifying to the fact that such notice was received and further that they have included or identified relevant evidence. VA requested records for which the Veteran submitted a proper release and/or adequately identified. The duty to assist is not a one-way street. If a Veteran desires help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190 (1991). Thus, the Board finds that VA has satisfied the duty to assist. No further notice or assistance to the Veteran is required to fulfill VA's duty to assist in development. Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227 (2000); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143 (2001); Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002).

The standard set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) only permits constructive receipt of Veterans Health Administration (VHA) records that not only existed prior to the issuance of the AOJ decision on appeal, but also for which the claimant furnished sufficient information to make the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) aware of the existence of those records. Thus, the Board's consideration of VHA records is limited to the same. Here, the Board finds that VA treatment records were obtained and reviewed consistent with 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(c)(2)(iii) and the AMA framework.

Service Connection

Legal Criteria

Service connection may be granted for a disability resulting from a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while performing active duty for training (ACDUTRA) or from an injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty while performing inactive duty for training (INACDUTRA). 38 U.S.C. § 101(24); see also 38 U.S.C. § 106; 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a).

Secondary service connection may be established for a disability which is proximately due to, or the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disability. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310. To substantiate a claim of secondary service connection, the record must show (1) a current disability (for which secondary service connection is sought); (2) an already service-connected disability; and (3) that the already service-connected disability caused or aggravated the disability for which service connection is sought. Wallin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 509 (1998).?

Entitlement to service connection for an eye disorder is denied.

Factual Background

In May 2019, the Veteran filed a service connection claim for an eye disorder. He asserted he had an eye disorder due to jet fuel splashing in his eyes in the summer of 2012. A November 2019 rating decision denied service connection. 

In September 2024, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim requesting service connection for an eye disorder. The January 2025 rating decision found that new and relevant evidence had been submitted and reconsidered the claim, and then denied the claim based on the evidence of record.

The Veteran's medical records during his National Guard service show that he was sprayed in the face with jet fuel in July 2012. On physical examination, his eyes were normal. At a December 2012 follow-up visit, he denied having any blurred vision, pain, or other symptoms. The medical officer determined that no further follow-up was needed.

The Veteran's post-service medical records do not show complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of an eye disorder.

In October 2019, the Veteran
4, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim requesting service connection for an eye disorder. The January 2025 rating decision found that new and relevant evidence had been submitted and reconsidered the claim, and then denied the claim based on the evidence of record.

The Veteran's medical records during his National Guard service show that he was sprayed in the face with jet fuel in July 2012. On physical examination, his eyes were normal. At a December 2012 follow-up visit, he denied having any blurred vision, pain, or other symptoms. The medical officer determined that no further follow-up was needed.

The Veteran's post-service medical records do not show complaints, treatment, or diagnosis of an eye disorder.

In October 2019, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination by an MD, Doctor of Ophthalmology. He reported experiencing an eye injury as a child in 2001 when a pencil damaged his right eye, he underwent surgery, and it healed appropriately with no vision issues afterwards. He reported that during National Guard service he was sprayed in the eyes with jet fuel. He reported having blurriness and visual confusion. The examiner reviewed the Veteran's claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted an examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a right eye scleral scar and right eye vitreous opacity (floater). The examiner reported that clearly the right eye scleral scar was from an injury prior to the jet fuel accident and the right eye floater was unrelated to the jet fuel accident as it was internal and the jet fuel was external.

In July 2024, the Veteran submitted an opinion regarding his eye disorder from A.N., a chiropractor. The diagnosis was indicated as "bilateral eye injury residuals."  The chiropractor opined that the Veteran's eye disorder was as likely as not related to his service. The chiropractor based the opinion on the Veteran's report of being sprayed with jet fuel.

In October 2024, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination with an Optometrist. He reported jet fuel splashing in both eyes during National Guard service. He reported intermittent dry eyes and a feeling of blurry vision. The examiner reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted an examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with bilateral keratoconus. The examiner opined that any eye disorder was less likely than not due to National Guard service. The examiner reported that while the Veteran was exposed to jet fuel in 2012, there were no residuals of injury found on examination. The Veteran's blurry vision was due to undiagnosed keratoconus, which was not associated with any injury and was dictated by genetic disposition.

Analysis

After review of the record, the Board gives the most probative value to the findings and opinion of the VA examiners. The examiners opined that the Veteran's eye disorder was less likely than not due to the injury during National Guard service. The examiners explained that the Veteran had no residuals of the in-service event. See D'Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97, 107 (2008) (it is within the purview of the Board to evaluate the medical evidence and favor one medical opinion over another). 

The conclusions and diagnosis made by the chiropractor were conclusory in nature. The chiropractor provided no medical rationale for linking the Veteran's subjective reports of an eye disorder to any exposure to jet fuel. Horn v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 231, 240-42 (2012) (stating that under caselaw "an unexplained conclusory opinion is entitled to no weight in a service-connection context"). The chiropractor also did not address the Veteran's medical records showing that he denied having any blurred vision, pain, or other symptoms related to the jet fuel incident. Furthermore, a chiropractor is not qualified through medical training or experience to diagnose and assess the causes of an eye disorder. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(a)(1); see also Fed. R. Evid. 702 ("A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion" provided certain conditions are met). The October 2019 examiner is a Medical Doctor of Ophthalmology with specialty training in disabilities of the eyes, the opinion was rendered by a specialist after an in-person examination, and with full consideration of the facts of the case.  The October 2024 examiner is an Optometrist with specialty training in disabilities of the eyes, the opinion was rendered by a specialist after an in-person examination, and with full consideration of the facts of the case.  As such, the opinion of the VA examiners are given the most probative value.

Consideration has been given to the Veteran's assertions that he had an eye disorder due to his service. He is clearly competent to
 in the form of an opinion" provided certain conditions are met). The October 2019 examiner is a Medical Doctor of Ophthalmology with specialty training in disabilities of the eyes, the opinion was rendered by a specialist after an in-person examination, and with full consideration of the facts of the case.  The October 2024 examiner is an Optometrist with specialty training in disabilities of the eyes, the opinion was rendered by a specialist after an in-person examination, and with full consideration of the facts of the case.  As such, the opinion of the VA examiners are given the most probative value.

Consideration has been given to the Veteran's assertions that he had an eye disorder due to his service. He is clearly competent to report the symptoms of an eye disorder. See Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377 (2007). However, while he may describe symptoms, he lacks the medical training or qualifications either to diagnose an eye disorder or to relate this condition to his National Guard service. Id. 

Accordingly, the evidence of record is persuasively against a finding that the Veteran has an eye disorder related to National Guard service, and the claim must be denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a cervical spine disability is denied.

Entitlement to service connection for a lumbar spine disability is denied.

Factual Background

In July 2022, the Veteran filed a service connection claim for a cervical spine disability and a lumbar spine disability. He asserted that his cervical spine disability was due to a motor vehicle accident during his active duty. He reported he injured his lumbar spine during training. An October 2022 rating decision denied service connection for both claims.

In September 2024, the Veteran filed a supplemental claim requesting service connection for a cervical spine disorder and a lumbar spine disorder. The January 2025 rating decision found that new and relevant evidence had been submitted and reconsidered the claims, and then denied the claims based on the evidence of record.

The Veteran's medical records during his National Guard service show that in January 2011, he denied having any medical problems. In July 2012, he denied any injury to his cervical or lumbar spine and denied having chronic pain. He had a normal physical examination.

The Veteran's post-service medical records show that in January 2020, he denied having cervical spine pain. In January 2021, he reported having lumbar spine pain after a workout. He was diagnosed with a lumbar spine strain.

In August 2022, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination. He reported that he was involved in a motor vehicle accident and experienced a cervical compression fracture. He also reported having to carry a heavy load in service. The examiner reviewed the Veteran's claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted an examination. A lumbar spine x-ray was normal. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a lumbar strain.

In July 2024, the Veteran submitted opinions regarding his cervical spine disability and lumbar spine disability from A.N., a chiropractor. The chiropractor noted that the Veteran reported he was in a motor vehicle crash in 2016 and injured his neck and back. The chiropractor noted that the Veteran also reported he was told he had a compression fracture in his neck. The chiropractor opined that the Veteran's cervical spine disability and lumbar spine disability were as likely as not related to service.

In October 2024, the Veteran was afforded a VA examination in-person with a physician. He reported that his neck pain started in 2014 while he was pulling jet fuel hoses. He reported that his back pain started during physical training. He also reported that he had to carry jet fuel hoses. He reported being seen by a chiropractor during his National Guard service but could not provide the records. The examiner reviewed the claims file, interviewed the Veteran, and conducted an examination. The examiner diagnosed the Veteran with a cervical spine strain with bilateral upper extremity radiculopathy and a lumbosacral strain with bilateral lower extremity radiculopathy. The examiner opined that any cervical spine disability or lumbar spine disability was less likely than not due to the Veteran's service. The examiner reported that the Veteran's medical records during his National Guard service did not show any injury or event involving his cervical spine or lumbar spine during National Guard service.

Analysis

After weighing all the evidence, the Board finds the greatest probative value in the October 2024 VA examiner's opinion, which considered the elements necessary to substantiate a service connection claim and considered the Veteran's medical records. The chiropractor diagnosed the Veteran with cervical spine pain and lumbar spine pain. The chiropractor, however, provided no rationale for the opinion or referred to any medical evidence within the Veteran's claims file that led to the conclusion that his cervical spine disability and lumbar spine disability were due to his
 likely than not due to the Veteran's service. The examiner reported that the Veteran's medical records during his National Guard service did not show any injury or event involving his cervical spine or lumbar spine during National Guard service.

Analysis

After weighing all the evidence, the Board finds the greatest probative value in the October 2024 VA examiner's opinion, which considered the elements necessary to substantiate a service connection claim and considered the Veteran's medical records. The chiropractor diagnosed the Veteran with cervical spine pain and lumbar spine pain. The chiropractor, however, provided no rationale for the opinion or referred to any medical evidence within the Veteran's claims file that led to the conclusion that his cervical spine disability and lumbar spine disability were due to his National Guard service. This appears to be highly relevant in that the Veteran's medical records from his National Guard service show that he denied having any injury to his cervical or lumbar spine, he denied having any chronic pain, and he had a normal examination. The claims file contains no evidence supporting that the Veteran was involved in a motor vehicle accident related to a period of service to include INADUTRA and no evidence that he sustained a cervical compression fracture. His medical records show that he denied having any cervical spine pain, and he did not report having any lumbar spine pain until January 2020 after a lumbar spine strain during a workout.  Conversely, the October 2024 VA examiner concluded that any cervical spine disability or lumbar spine disability was less likely than not due to the Veteran's National Guard service and specifically explain why. The examiner was shown to have reviewed and considered the pertinent evidence of record. The Veteran's reported history was adequately considered. See Dalton v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 23 (2007).

Consideration has been given to the Veteran's assertions that his cervical spine disability and lumbar spine disability were due to his service. He is competent to report the symptoms of these conditions. See Jandreau, 492 F.3d 1372. However, while he may describe symptoms, he lacks the medical training or qualifications to relate a current cervical spine disability or lumbar spine disability to an event during National Guard service. Id. 

Additionally, the Board finds that the Veteran is not credible with regard to in-service incidents.  The Veteran initially reported a motor vehicle accident in 2016, supposedly related to service.  He shifted his contentions by the time of the October 2024 VA examination to rely upon undocumented in-service events which are unverifiable.  However, the Veteran denied having any cervical spine pain in January 2020 and did not report any lumbar spine pain until after a strain during a workout in January 2021.  These medical records are given great probative value and undermine the Veteran's credibility. Cartwright v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 24, 25 (1991) (finding that a pecuniary interest may affect the credibility of a claimant's testimony); Fed. R. Evid. 803 (4) (recognizing that statements made for the purpose of medical treatment generally are reliable). 

Thus, the evidence of record is persuasively against a finding that a cervical spine disability or lumbar spine disability was related to National Guard service, and the claims must be denied.

Entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of all four extremities is denied.

The Veteran is not service connected for a cervical spine disability or a lumbar spine disability. The record does not show or suggest, and the Veteran did not assert, that any radiculopathy was related to his National Guard service.

Whether radiculopathy may have been caused or aggravated by a cervical spine disability or lumbar spine disability loss is a medical question. However, with respect to the secondary service connection, there is a threshold legal requirement that the primary disability underlying the claim must be service connected. In this case, service connection for a cervical spine disability and a lumbar spine disability have not been established.

As a cervical spine disability and a lumbar spine disability are not service connected, the claim of service connection for radiculopathy of all four extremities vertigo as secondary to a cervical spine disability and a lumbar spine disability lacks legal merit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

Accordingly, the criteria are not met to establishment entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of all four extremities, and the claim must be denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE REGIONAL OFFICE (RO) ADJUDICATOR:

The Veteran asserted that his acquired psychiatric disorder was due to his service, specifically, being splashed in the face with jet fuel. The medical opinion obtained in January 202
 all four extremities vertigo as secondary to a cervical spine disability and a lumbar spine disability lacks legal merit. 38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

Accordingly, the criteria are not met to establishment entitlement to service connection for radiculopathy of all four extremities, and the claim must be denied.

REASONS FOR REMAND

Entitlement to service connection for an acquired psychiatric disorder is remanded.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:

BACKGROUND INFORMATION FOR THE REGIONAL OFFICE (RO) ADJUDICATOR:

The Veteran asserted that his acquired psychiatric disorder was due to his service, specifically, being splashed in the face with jet fuel. The medical opinion obtained in January 2025 relied on a lack of treatment during the Veteran's service as rationale, which is not sufficient. Therefore, a remand is required to cure a pre-decisional duty to assist error.

THE REMAND DIRECTIVES FOLLOW

1. Obtain an opinion regarding the Veteran's service connection claim for an acquired psychiatric disorder.

The examiner should respond to the following after review of the claims file:

(a) Identify any current acquired psychiatric disorder consistent with the DSM-V.

(b) For each acquired psychiatric disorder diagnosed, opine as to whether it is at least as likely as not (likelihood is at least approximately balanced or nearly equal, if not higher) that any acquired psychiatric disorder is related to the Veteran's service, to include having jet fuel splashed in his face. Why or why not?

The examiner's attention is drawn, but not limited to, the following evidence:??

"	The July 2022 lay statement of the Veteran that his acquired psychiatric disorder is related to being splashed in the face with jet fuel during service.

"	The findings and opinion of the January 2025 examiner.

The Board notes that the claims folder must be provided to and reviewed by the examiner for all post-remand cases per AOJ policy. See VBA Manual M21-1, Part IV.i.2.A.8.b. Thus, the examiner must specifically note that the claims folder was received and reviewed in the body of the examination report. 

All requested opinions must be supported with a rationale based on generally accepted medical principles and the examiner's medical training and expertise.

2. Readjudicate.

 

 

Jennifer White

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	T. Berryman, 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.