The Board denied the Veteran's claim for a compensable rating for bilateral eye floaters as her corrected distance vision was 20/20 or better, and there were no other visual impairments reported.
The deciding factor: The Veteran did not meet the criteria for a compensable rating under Diagnostic Code 6066 due to her corrected distance vision being 20/20 or better in both eyes.
- Claimed conditions
- bilateral eye floaters
- How they argued it
- Direct service connection
- Exposure basis
- None
- Rating assigned
- None in this decision
- Decision date
- December 11, 2025
- Citation
- A25107190
Veterans Law Judge
Decisions by this judge: 2,341 · Granted: 33% (granted or partly granted, in the vetted 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. Look up the original decision on VA.gov (opens in a new tab) using citation A25107190.
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.
- Partly granted
The Board granted service connection for heart palpitations, bruxism, and bilateral dry eye, while denying service connection for the other conditions.
- Dismissed
The Veteran's appeals for service connection for bilateral eye floaters, chalazion, radiculopathy of right lower extremity, and radiculopathy of left lower extremity have been dismissed as the claims were withdrawn by the Veteran during a hearing. The AOJ has already granted service connection for radiculopathy of the bilateral lower extremities secondary to his service-connected back disability.
- Denied
The Veteran's unauthorized medical expenses incurred on June 6, 2012, for cellulitis of the left lower extremity were denied because they did not meet the criteria for emergency treatment under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1725.
- Denied
The Board denied the veteran's claims for increased ratings for his service-connected lumbar myositis, psychoneurosis and conversion hysteria, residuals of shrapnel wounds of the left thigh and pelvis with retained foreign bodies and scars, and residuals of shell fragment wounds of the right thigh and left leg. The veteran was also denied entitlement to a total disability rating based on individual unemployability due to service-connected disabilities.
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.