The Board has determined that the Veteran's bilateral legal blindness, including due to retinitis pigmentosa, was not incurred or aggravated by service. The evidence does not support a finding of in-service aggravation of the condition and there is no evidence linking post-surgical cataracts or refractive errors to service.
The deciding factor: The Board found that retinitis pigmentosa is a congenital disease which preexisted service, and was not aggravated by service. Post-surgical cataracts were determined to be related to the natural aging process rather than service. Refractive error was deemed unrelated to service due to lack of superimposed injury or disease.
- Claimed conditions
- retinitis pigmentosa, post-surgical cataracts, refractive error
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- August 18, 2017
- Citation
- 1733999
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 1733999.
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 Board dismissed the motion to revise a 1968 rating decision denying service connection for retinitis pigmentosa due to the Veteran's death.
- Dismissed
The Veteran withdrew his appeals for service connection and rating increases in multiple disabilities, including chronic fatigue syndrome, radiculopathies, refractive error, cervical spine disability, left knee disability, and right knee disability. The Board has dismissed these appeals.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the claims for service connection and compensation under 38 U.S.C. 1151 due to an alleged missing Notice of Disagreement (NOD) filed in January 2016, which was sent in response to a notification letter dated October 2015.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to the need for additional development, including obtaining Social Security Administration records and providing an addendum opinion regarding the Veteran's service-connected diabetes mellitus type II and hypertension.
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.