The Board denied the Veteran's attempts to reopen his claims of entitlement to service connection for residuals of bilateral conjunctivitis and corneal abrasion, as well as a dry eye condition. The evidence submitted did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate these claims.
The deciding factor: The new evidence did not show any relationship between the Veteran's current diagnosed conditions and his military service.
- Claimed conditions
- residuals of bilateral conjunctivitis and corneal abrasion, dry eye condition
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- March 5, 2019
- Citation
- 19115841
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 940 · Granted: 21% (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. Read the original VA decision (opens in a new tab) using citation 19115841.
What this means for you
A final Board denial may be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, generally within 120 days of the Board mailing date. A Supplemental Claim with new and relevant evidence is a separate option. Another Higher-Level Review of the Board decision is not available. Check your own notice: this historical decision does not set your deadline.
What you can do next
Use your own notice and decision stage. A remanded issue is not a final court-appealable denial. VA review guidance and CAVC filing instructions (U.S. federal; reviewed October 7, 2026).
Related decisions
Other Board decisions on a similar condition or argued the same way.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has determined that the VA decision denying enrollment in the PCAFC program was not based on a proper application of the law and regulations, specifically regarding the definition of 'supervision, protection, or instruction' under 38 C.F.R. § 71.15. The Board therefore remands the case for further action.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for a dry eye condition to obtain an adequate medical opinion regarding its relationship to service and any service-connected conditions.
- Whole decision: Denied
The Board denied an earlier effective date for the award of a total disability rating based on individual unemployability (TDIU) and Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits due to service-connected disabilities, finding that entitlement did not arise until July 16, 2021.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has remanded the case due to insufficient opinions regarding whether the Veteran's dry eye condition is secondary to his service-connected sleep apnea and chronic allergic rhinitis. The VA needs to obtain an opinion that addresses these issues.
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.