The Board has restored a 20 percent disability rating for the veteran's service-connected bilateral dry eyes, effective from the date of reduction.
The deciding factor: The decision upholds the original service connection and assigns a compensable rating based on the current medical evidence without any issues regarding service connection or exposure basis.
- Claimed conditions
- dry eyes
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating
- Not verified here — check the original decision
- Decision date
- November 18, 2019
- Citation
- 19186046
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,050 · Granted: 23% (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 19186046.
What this means for you
A grant means the Board allowed the benefit or issue identified in this decision. Review the original order: other issues in the same appeal may have a different outcome, and this decision does not predict another claim.
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 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.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: 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.
- Whole decision: Remanded (sent back)
The Board has decided to remand the case due to a duty-to-assist error in obtaining an adequate medical opinion regarding the relationship between the Veteran's dry eyes and his service, particularly his exposure to toxins during service in the Persian Gulf.
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.