The Board has reopened the Veteran's claims for service connection for dry eyes and photophobia, as well as right eye traction retinal detachment. The evidence now shows that these conditions have been present since service and are related to undiagnosed illness due to military service in the Gulf War.
The deciding factor: New evidence established that the Veteran's dry eyes and photophobia have persisted for a period longer than six months, meeting the criteria for a qualifying chronic disability under 38 C.F.R. § 3.317(a)(2).
- Claimed conditions
- dry eyes, photophobia
- How they argued it
- Not specified
- Exposure basis
- Gulf War
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- March 19, 2013
- Citation
- 1309234
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 1309234.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board agreed the veteran was entitled to the benefit. Decisions like this show the kind of evidence and arguments that tend to succeed for claims like it.
What you can do next
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has found that remand is needed for the Veteran's claims due to duty to assist errors, including clarification of periods of service and obtaining relevant records. The Veteran will be afforded new medical examinations for each claimed disability.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to insufficient medical opinion regarding whether the Veteran's dry eyes are related to service. The claim will be reviewed again with additional evidence.
- 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.
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.