The Board has remanded the case due to uncertainty about whether the veteran currently has a diagnosed eye disorder that is related to service.
The deciding factor: The VA medical records do not provide a clear diagnosis of an eye disorder, and thus the claim cannot be decided without additional development.
- Claimed conditions
- photophobia, eye strain
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- November 7, 2006
- Citation
- 0634352
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,435 · Granted: 22% (granted or partly granted, in the indexed decisions on this site)
Judge attribution: 2025 complete; earlier years partial.
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. Search VA.gov for the original decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 0634352.
What this means for you
A remand sends an issue back for more development, often a new examination or missing records. It does not award the benefit or decide the final outcome. The original decision explains the additional work ordered.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Veteran's claims for service connection for residuals of a traumatic brain injury, seizure disorder, photophobia, and headaches are being remanded due to the need to obtain Social Security Administration records.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to a duty-to-assist error, specifically failing to obtain an opinion regarding whether the Veteran's current bilateral eye disability is related to service exposure to burn pits. The AOJ should obtain such an opinion.
- Granted
Service connection is granted for dry eye syndrome, photophobia, and right knee PFPS. Service connection for right shoulder strain and left shoulder strain is remanded.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a failure by VA to obtain relevant private treatment records, including from Dr. K and Dr. N, which may be pertinent to the Veteran's eligibility for PCAFC benefits.
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.