DISEASES OF CONJUNCTIVA KERATITIS AND CORNEAL OPACITIES

Summary

The Veteran, who served from March 2013 to June 2023 with multiple periods of service, appeals the denial of service connection for dry eye syndrome and sleep apnea. The claim for dry eye syndrome was dismissed due to procedural error, as the Veteran had already appealed the same issue in a separate docket, constituting an impermissible concurrent election. The Board found this appeal stream improperly docketed and dismissed it, citing Hall v. McDonough. Regarding sleep apnea, the Veteran contended it was either directly related to service or secondary to his service-connected major depressive disorder with anxiety and insomnia. However, the Board denied this claim, finding insufficient evidence of a current diagnosis of sleep apnea. A recent VA sleep study indicated snoring without obstructive sleep apnea, and the examiner noted no current signs or symptoms attributable to sleep apnea. The Board relied on this examination and the sleep study, concluding that the Veteran failed to demonstrate a current diagnosis, which is a prerequisite for service connection. The Veteran's own assertions of having sleep apnea were deemed insufficient as he is not competent to provide a medical diagnosis. Therefore, service connection for sleep apnea was denied on both direct and secondary bases.

Rationale

Issue dismissed due to procedural error (impermissible concurrent election).; Veteran filed multiple appeals for the same issue.; Claim already addressed in a separate Board decision.

Full Decision Text

Citation Nr: A26040502
Decision Date: 04/30/26	Archive Date: 04/30/26

DOCKET NO. 250424-540975
DATE: April 30, 2026

ISSUES

1. Entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome claimed as visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision.

2. Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea.

ORDER

The appeal of entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome claimed as visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, and double vision is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea is denied.

FINDINGS OF FACT

1. The issue of service connection for dry eye syndrome claimed as visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, double vision was appealed by way of two separate VA Form 10182 Notices of Disagreement received on November 25, 2024 and April 24, 2025. The Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) already addressed the issue in a separate appeal stream and docket in an October 22, 2025 decision. This docket resulted from an impermissible concurrent election. 

2. The evidence of record is against finding that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea for VA disability compensation purposes.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

1. The criteria for dismissal of the claim for entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome claimed as visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, double vision are met. 38 U.S.C. § 7105, 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500 (b). 

2. The criteria for service connection for sleep apnea, to include as secondary to the Veteran's service-connected major depressive disorder, moderate with anxious distress and insomnia have not been met.  38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.304, 3.310.

REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS

The Veteran served on active duty from March 18, 2013, to November 8, 2013, from October 1, 2020, to September 30, 2021, and from February 3, 2022, to June 15, 2023. 

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from April 2025 rating decision from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).  In the April 2025, VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal (Notice of Disagreement), the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may only consider the evidence of record at the time of April 2025 rating decisions on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. 

If evidence was submitted after the AOJ issued the rating decision on appeal, 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, 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 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. 

Entitlement to service connection for dry eye syndrome claimed as visual impairment, including blurry vision, blindness, double vision.

Under the AMA, concurrent or duplicate election is prohibited, meaning that once a claimant has filed for review through one option (i.e., higher-level review, supplemental claim, Board review), he cannot seek review under a different option, while the first review option is pending final adjudication. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2500 (b). Here, the Veteran sought concurrent and duplicate review of the same issue.

The Veteran filed multiple appeals for the same issue. This appeal stream resulted from the April 24, 2025 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement. However, the Veteran also appealed this issue in a separate November 25, 2024 VA Form 10182. Generally, the first appeal of an issue before the Board will be the appeal stream to survive.

Accordingly, the Veteran's claim appealed in the April 2025 Notice of Disagreement was already addressed in an October 22, 2025 Board decision (Docket Number: 241125-497879); the decision remanded the claim to the AOJ.

Thus, this do
, the Veteran sought concurrent and duplicate review of the same issue.

The Veteran filed multiple appeals for the same issue. This appeal stream resulted from the April 24, 2025 VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement. However, the Veteran also appealed this issue in a separate November 25, 2024 VA Form 10182. Generally, the first appeal of an issue before the Board will be the appeal stream to survive.

Accordingly, the Veteran's claim appealed in the April 2025 Notice of Disagreement was already addressed in an October 22, 2025 Board decision (Docket Number: 241125-497879); the decision remanded the claim to the AOJ.

Thus, this docketed appeal stream must be dismissed due to procedural error.

This appeal is an impermissible concurrent election and was improperly docketed at the Board; therefore, the appropriate remedy is to dismiss this appeal due to procedural error. Id.; see Hall v. McDonough, 34 Vet. App. 329, 333 (2021) (The Board may not dismiss an improperly docketed appeal for lack of jurisdiction but is not precluded from dismissing it for other non-jurisdictional reasons such as a procedural defect-a violation of the claims processing rules).  For above-mentioned reasons, the appeal is dismissed.

Entitlement to service connection for sleep apnea.

The Veteran contends that he should be service connected for sleep apnea either directly related to service or as secondary to his service-connected psychiatric disability of major depressive disorder, moderate with anxious distress; insomnia. See April 1, 2025, VA Form 21-526EZ Fully Developed Claim.

Generally, to establish service connection, a claimant must show: (1) a present disability; (2) an 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 or aggravated during service, the so-called "nexus" requirement.  See 38 U.S.C. § 1110; 38 C.F.R. § 3.303; see also Shedden v. Principi, 381 F.3d 1163, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2004).  A disability that is proximately due to, the result of, or aggravated by a service-connected disease or injury shall be service connected.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310.

Service connection may also be established on a secondary basis for a disability that is proximately due to or the result of a service-connected disease or injury.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310(a).  Establishing service connection on a secondary basis requires evidence sufficient to show (1) that a current disability exists and (2) that the current disability was either (a) caused by or (b) aggravated by a service-connected disability.  38 C.F.R. § 3.310 (a); Allen v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 439 (1995).  

The question for the Board is whether the Veteran has a current disability that began during service or is at least as likely as not related to an in-service injury, event, or disease or to a service-connected disability.

Upon review of the evidence, the Board finds that the Veteran does not have evidence of sleep apnea and has not had sleep apnea at any time during the pendency of the claim or recent to the filing of the claim.  Romanowsky v. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 289, 294 (2013); McClain v. Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 319, 321 (2007).

The existence of a current disability is the cornerstone of a claim for VA disability compensation.  38 U.S.C. § 1110; see Degmetich v. Brown, 104 F.3d 1328, 1332 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Absent proof of a current disability, there can be no valid claim.  Boyer v. West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). 

Here, as noted above, the evidence does not show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea, separate from his chronic sleep impairment which is contemplated in his already service-connected Major Depressive Disorder, Moderate with Anxious distress; Insomnia (rated as 50 percent disabling from October 1, 2023 and 70 percent disabling from October 3, 2024). See November 18, 2024, Rating decision re: Insomnia. 

In April 2025, the Veteran was afforded a Sleep Ap
 West, 210 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2000); Brammer v. Derwinski, 3 Vet. App. 223 (1992). 

Here, as noted above, the evidence does not show that the Veteran has a current diagnosis of sleep apnea, separate from his chronic sleep impairment which is contemplated in his already service-connected Major Depressive Disorder, Moderate with Anxious distress; Insomnia (rated as 50 percent disabling from October 1, 2023 and 70 percent disabling from October 3, 2024). See November 18, 2024, Rating decision re: Insomnia. 

In April 2025, the Veteran was afforded a Sleep Apnea examination.  On medical history, the examiner documented, the Veteran underwent a home sleep study on March 25, 2025, which indicated snoring, without obstructive sleep apnea. The examiner noted that the Veteran does not currently have any findings signs or symptoms attributable to sleep apnea. The examiner reported that the Veteran does not have any other pertinent physical findings, complications, conditions, signs or symptoms related to any conditions listed in the diagnosis section above.  The examiner documented that a review of the Veteran's claims file fails to identify a diagnosis of sleep apnea. The examiner documented that in fact, a home sleep study conducted on March 25, 2025 showed snoring-without obstructive sleep apnea. See April 14, 2025, Sleep Apnea examination.

While the Veteran believes that he has sleep apnea, he is not competent to provide a diagnosis in this case.  The issue is medically complex, as it requires specialized medical education and training.  Jandreau v. Nicholson, 492 F.3d 1372, 1377, 1377 n.4 (Fed. Cir. 2007).  The Veteran has not demonstrated he has the necessary medical training to render a diagnosis. 

The Board finds that the most probative evidence on whether the Veteran has a current diagnosis for sleep apnea is the April 2025 VA Sleep Apnea examination, where the examiner determined that the Veteran did not have a diagnosis of sleep apnea, and the March 2025 home sleep study that was negative for obstructive sleep apnea.

Accordingly, the Board concludes that service connection for sleep apnea on either a direct service or secondary service connection basis is not warranted because the evidence fails to show that the Veteran has had a diagnosis of sleep apnea at any point during the period on appeal.  See 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110; Rabideau, 2 Vet. App. 141.  The claim must therefore be denied.

 

 

Michael A. Pappas

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans' Appeals

Attorney for the Board	Little, Calvin

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.