The Board denied the veteran's claim for service connection for a cataract of the right eye due to exposure to ionizing radiation, finding that there was no causal link between his claimed condition and his military service.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner concluded that the preponderance of evidence did not support a finding that the veteran developed a posterior subcapsular cataract in the early 1980s due to exposure to ionizing radiation, as evidenced by conflicting medical opinions and the absence of supporting clinical data.
- Claimed conditions
- cataract
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- October 26, 2000
- Citation
- 0028317
This is a plain-language summary generated by AI from a public Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision. It can contain errors — always verify against the original. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation 0028317.
What this means for you
A denial is a starting point, not the end of the road. You can see why this claim fell short — and, if you are still inside the one-year window, the appeal lanes that may remain open to you.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeal for service connection for fatigue was dismissed. His headaches, IBS, GERD, allergic rhinitis, sinus, and sleep apnea were all granted. The left knee disability and cataract claims are still pending.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claim for an initial compensable disability rating for his service-connected eye disability, including cataract with meibomian gland dysfunction and dry eye syndrome, is being remanded due to a duty to assist error. The Board finds that relevant VA treatment records from VistA Imaging are missing.
- Denied
The appeal for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for open angle glaucoma, retinal detachment, and cataract (eye disability) was denied as the evidence did not support a finding that these conditions were caused by VA's carelessness or negligence.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient opinions regarding the etiology of the Veteran's eye disabilities, specifically his cataracts and hypertensive retinopathy.
Free starter guide for your own claim
Reading this because you were denied or under-rated? Get the plain-English next steps — your appeal options, the deadline that protects you, and how appeals like yours turn out. One email, no spam.
We will only use this to send the guide. No spam, unsubscribe any time. We never sell your information.
We are not the VA. Veterans’ Rights is an independent resource built for veterans. We are not the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, not part of the government, and not endorsed by any government agency.
This is general information, not legal advice. For advice about your own situation, talk to a VA-accredited representative — many help for free.