The Board found no evidence to support the Veteran's claim that his eye disorders, including cataracts, blepharitis, dry eyes, ocular hypertension, astigmatism, hyperopia, and presbyopia, were caused by exposure to non-ionizing radiation from radar equipment during service. As a result, service connection for these conditions was denied.
The deciding factor: The VA examiner's opinion concluded that the Veteran's eye disorders are less likely as not related to his in-service exposure to non-ionizing radiation from radar equipment, based on the type of non-ionizing radiation used and its known effects on tissue temperature but not lenticular changes.
- Claimed conditions
- incipient cataracts, blepharitis, dry eyes, ocular hypertension, presbyopia, astigmatism, hyperopia
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- September 15, 2015
- Citation
- 1539586
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 1539586.
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.
- 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.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeals for all the listed conditions in April 2024 and March 2025, thus dismissing the appeal.
- 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.