The Veteran seeks service connection for loss of eyesight, which he claims is due to in-service exposure to ionizing radiation. The Board has determined that a VA examination is needed to determine the nature and etiology of any eye disorder found.
The deciding factor: The need for a VA examination to determine the nature and etiology of any diagnosed eye disorder found.
- Claimed conditions
- loss of visual acuity
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- January 31, 2013
- Citation
- 1303330
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 1303330.
What this means for you
A remand is not a loss. The Board sent the case back for more development — often a new exam or missing records — before making a final decision. Many remands later end in a grant, and the decision spells out exactly what the Board wanted to see.
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 chronic rhinitis and sarcoidosis was dismissed. The appeals for erectile dysfunction, skin condition, scar, fibromyalgia, headaches, bilateral hearing loss, CFS, dental abscess, visual acuity, memory loss condition, myocardial infraction, cardiovascular disease, sleep apnea, and diabetes mellitus were all dismissed.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for compensation under 38 U.S.C. § 1151 for an additional disability of loss of visual acuity and a failed corneal transplant, as a result of eye surgeries performed by VA in 2014, due to improper development by the AOJ.
- Denied
The Board denied the Veteran's claim for service connection for loss of visual acuity, finding that the evidence does not support a link between the condition and his military service.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding the cause of the Veteran's loss of visual acuity during service.
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.