The Board denied the Veteran's claims for service connection for eye disabilities, including defective visual acuity, visual field defect, misaligned eyes, flickering eyes/vision, and dry eyes. The decision found that there was no evidence of a pre-existing condition or superimposed disease in service that caused these conditions.
The deciding factor: The Board determined that the Veteran's eye disabilities are not related to his military service due to lack of credible medical evidence linking any current eye disability to service, and because he did not have an ocular injury during service. The Board also noted that there was no probative evidence showing a visual field defect in service or post-service.
- Claimed conditions
- defective visual acuity, visual field defect, misaligned eyes, flickering eyes/vision, dry eyes
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 4, 2020
- Citation
- 20077147
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 20077147.
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.
- 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.
- 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.