How the Board ruled on eye and vision claims, 2021–2025

Eye / vision (direct service connection)

Direct (began in or was caused by service), or theory not stated in the Board order

21.7% granted of 1,964 decided cases (margin of error 20.0–23.6%). 427 granted, 1,537 denied, 2,794 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 473 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• The Board gave strong weight to private opinions, often from eye specialists, that explained how an in-service injury or exposure led to the current eye condition and fit the record. (5 of 10 decisions read; e.g. 21001421, 21074472, 21035775)
• Negative VA opinions lost weight when they ignored in-service eye trauma records, misread the law on congenital conditions, or relied on a lack of treatment despite documented symptoms. (4 of 10 decisions read; e.g. 21058426, 21054530, 24002705)
• The Board accepted the veteran's consistent, credible reports of eye symptoms such as dry eye, floaters, or light sensitivity that began in service and continued. (4 of 10 decisions read; e.g. A25016042, 22020251, 24002705)

Common reasons in denied cases

• The Board denied when VA examiners gave detailed opinions against a link, based on the record and medical literature, and no medical opinion of similar quality supported the claimed condition. (3 of 9 decisions read; e.g. A25038707, 21057747, 23030792)
• Many claims failed because there was no current chronic eye disability, only past findings, refractive error, or symptoms without a diagnosis. (4 of 9 decisions read; e.g. A24062130, 22055814, A24066027)
• Claims also failed when service records showed no eye injury or disease, or when the eye condition stemmed from a condition that was not service-connected. (4 of 9 decisions read; e.g. A24045746, 22055814, 21008168)

See the full answer, year by year →

Eye / vision (exposure claims)

Exposure (e.g. Agent Orange, Camp Lejeune, burn pits)

7.5% granted of 67 decided cases (margin of error 3.2–16.3%). 5 granted, 62 denied, 118 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 5 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• In the few grants, the Board relied on a VA examiner's own favorable opinion that explained the link, rested on an accurate history and full file review, and had no probative opinion against it. (2 of 3 decisions read, few decisions; e.g. 21028083, 21073183)

Common reasons in denied cases

• Most denials rested on a reasoned VA opinion, often from an eye specialist or citing medical literature, that found no link to the exposure, with no probative contrary opinion. (7 of 13 decisions read; e.g. 22060050, 21016349, 21042485)
• The only evidence linking the eye condition to service was the veteran's own belief, or there was no medical opinion at all, which the Board found not competent. (4 of 13 decisions read; e.g. A24013890, 22049429, 21023032)
• Other denials noted that eye conditions like glaucoma are not on the herbicide presumptive list, exposure was not shown, or a cause like age was more likely. (4 of 13 decisions read; e.g. A24013890, 22037365, 22015590)

See the full answer, year by year →

Eye / vision secondary to any service-connected condition

Secondary (caused or worsened by a service-connected condition)

28.4% granted of 310 decided cases (margin of error 23.7–33.6%). 88 granted, 222 denied, 616 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 29 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• A treating or private doctor's opinion that clearly explained how the service-connected condition caused the eye problem was given high weight, in one case over a VA opinion that misread the veteran's service history. (4 of 8 decisions read; e.g. 21037654, A23000623, 21049301)
• A VA examiner's own favorable opinion carried the claim, often finding cataracts were caused or worsened by service-connected diabetes, or eye symptoms were part of service-connected migraines. (3 of 8 decisions read; e.g. 21073489, 21055062, 23026912)
• The veteran's credible account of symptoms, such as frequent eye rubbing or eye symptoms during migraines, supported a medical statement linking the eye problem to the service-connected condition. (2 of 8 decisions read, few decisions; e.g. 21013320, 23026912)

Common reasons in denied cases

• A thorough VA opinion that reviewed the record and explained its reasoning found no link, often pointing to aging or another illness, and no medical opinion rebutted it. (5 of 10 decisions read; e.g. 21074222, 21044008, 21006618)
• The only evidence linking the eye problem to a service-connected condition was the veteran's own belief, which the Board found was not competent medical evidence. (4 of 10 decisions read; e.g. 21006618, 21013757, 21021087)
• VA eye exams found no current eye disability, such as normal corrected vision or no diabetic retinopathy at examination. (2 of 10 decisions read, few decisions; e.g. 21021087, 22002346)

See the full answer, year by year →

Eye / vision secondary to diabetes

Secondary (caused or worsened by a service-connected condition)

28.9% granted of 121 decided cases (margin of error 21.6–37.6%). 35 granted, 86 denied, 227 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 19 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• A VA examiner gave a favorable opinion that diabetes caused or worsened the eye condition (cataracts, glaucoma, retinal detachment), and the Board found it well supported. (5 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 21073489, 21054670, 21049304)
• Treatment records, often from private eye doctors, documented diabetic eye disease such as diabetic retinopathy, and the Board relied on them over a later VA finding that no retinopathy was present. (5 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 24006394, 24006192, A24000641)
• Negative VA opinions lost weight when they were internally inconsistent, conflicted with diagnoses already in the record, or did not address whether diabetes aggravated the eye condition. (3 of 14 decisions read; e.g. 24006394, 24006192, A25027533)

Common reasons in denied cases

• The examiner or treating eye doctor found no diabetic retinopathy and attributed the condition, most often cataracts, to normal aging. (6 of 18 decisions read; e.g. 21066885, 22052585, 21003865)
• The only support was the veteran's own belief, a private statement with no rationale, or general medical articles not tied to the veteran's case by a medical professional. (5 of 18 decisions read; e.g. 21043276, 21026898, A25034440)
• Diabetes itself was not service connected (for example, herbicide exposure was not established), so a secondary eye claim could not succeed. (4 of 18 decisions read; e.g. 22011061, A24001016, 21045482)

See the full answer, year by year →

Eye / vision secondary to hypertension

Secondary (caused or worsened by a service-connected condition)

31.2% granted of 32 decided cases (margin of error 18.0–48.6%). 10 granted, 22 denied, 52 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 1 dismissed.

What convinced the Board in granted cases

• The Board gave strong weight to private physician opinions that reviewed the record and gave a detailed rationale, including one from an eye specialist who treated the veteran's condition. (3 of 7 decisions read; e.g. 23041190, A24026780, 23017193)
• Other grants found the evidence at least evenly balanced that hypertension caused the eye condition, such as retinopathy or cataracts, without the excerpt showing the reasoning. (3 of 7 decisions read; e.g. A24001004, 23001622, 21012920)

Common reasons in denied cases

• VA opinions with detailed rationales tied the eye problems to other causes, such as aging, dry eye, or diabetes, or found no worsening from hypertension. (4 of 12 decisions read; e.g. 24003853, 22011287, 21032016)
• The veteran's own belief about the diagnosis or its cause was not competent medical evidence, since eye conditions need specialized testing. (4 of 12 decisions read; e.g. 22011287, A25034440, 21032016)
• Some denials found no qualifying eye diagnosis, such as no hypertensive retinopathy or glaucoma, or only refractive error, which is not a compensable disability. (3 of 12 decisions read; e.g. 23050464, 21015252, 21043682)

See the full answer, year by year →

Eye / vision secondary to depression / psychiatric disorder

Secondary (caused or worsened by a service-connected condition)

Small sample: 10 decided cases, too few for a reliable percentage. 3 granted, 7 denied, 15 sent back to VA (remanded, not decided), 0 dismissed.

See the full answer, year by year →