The Board has denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for a macular eye hole, a rating in excess of 10 percent for mental health to include sleep dysfunctions (nightmares), and TDIU prior to February 1, 2018. The evidence did not establish that his currently diagnosed conditions were related to or aggravated by service.
The deciding factor: The Veteran's claims were denied as the new evidence received since the November 2016 rating decision was either cumulative or redundant of previous evidence and did not relate to an unestablished fact necessary to substantiate the claim for service connection for age-related macular degeneration. The mental health disorder resulted in occupational and social impairment with mild symptoms, but no significant impairment.
- Claimed conditions
- macular eye hole, age-related macular degeneration
- How they argued it
- Reopened with new and material evidence
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- June 13, 2019
- Citation
- 19146231
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.
- Denied
The Board denied the appellant's claim for service connection for a right eye disability, including cataracts, finding that his current disabilities are not at least as likely as not related to his active duty service.
- Denied
The Board found that the veteran's current eye condition is not connected to his in-service pterygium removal, and thus denied service connection for pterygium in the right eye.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for sarcoidosis as new and relevant evidence has been received since the previous denial.
- Remanded (sent back)
The Board remands the claim for service connection for tinnitus to correct a duty to assist error, as the Veteran's lay statements regarding onset and continuity of symptoms were not adequately considered in the previous decision.
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.